DID THE TURKS REALLY TRY TO MASSACRE THE ARMENIANS STARTING IN THE 1890's ?

The so-called "Armenian Question" is generally thought of as having begun in the second half of the nineteenth century. One can easily point to the Russo-Turkish war (1877 - 78) and the Congress of Berlin (1878) which concluded the war as marking the emergence of this question as a problem in Europe. In fact, however, one must really go back to Russian activities in the East starting in the 1820's to uncover its origins. Czarist Russia at the time was beginning a major new imperial expansion across Central Asia, in the process overrunning major Turkish Khanates in its push toward the borders of China and the Pacific Ocean. At the same time, Russian imperial ambitions turned southward as the Czars sought to gain control of Ottoman territory to extend their landlocked empire to the Mediterranean and the open seas. As an essential element of this ambition, Russia sought to undermine Ottoman strength from within by stirring the national ambitions of the Sultan's subject Christian peoples, in particular those with whom it shared a common Orthodox religious heritage, the Greeks and the Slavs in the Balkans and the Armenians. At the same time that Russian agents fanned the fires of the Greek Revolution and stirred the beginnings of Pan-Slavism in Serbia and Bulgaria, others moved into the Caucasus and worked to secure Russian influence over the Catholicos of the Armenian Gregorian Church of Echmiadzin, to which most Ottoman Gregorians had strong emotional attachments. The Russians used the Catholicos' jealousy of the Istanbul Patriarch to gain his support to such an extent that Catholicos Nerses Aratarakes himself led a force of 60,000 Armenians in support of the Russian army that fought Iran in the Caucasus in 1827 - 1828, in the process capturing most of Iran's Caucasus possessions, including those areas where the Armenians lived. This new Russian presence along the borders of eastern Anatolia, combined with the support of the Catholicos, enabled them to extend their influence among Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. Russian pressure in Istanbul finally got the Patriarch to add the Catholicos' name to his daily prayers starting in 1844, furthering the latter's ability to influence Ottoman Armenians in Russia's favor in the years that followed. Most Ottoman Armenians were still too content with their lot in the Sultan's dominions to be seriously influenced by this Russian propaganda, but those who immigrated to Russian Armenia to join the Russian effort against Ottoman stability and power. The lands that they abandoned were turned over to Muslim refugees flooding into the Empire from persecution in Russia and Eastern Europe. This led to serious land disputes when many of the Armenian emigrants, or their descendants, unhappy with life in Russia, sought to return to the Ottoman Empire in the. 1880's and 1890's.

The Russians were not the only foreign power seeking to protect the Ottoman Christians. England and France sponsored missionary activities that converted many Armenians to Protestantism and Catholicism respectively, leading to the creation of the Armenian Catholic Church in Istanbul in 1830 and the Protestant Church in 1847. However these developments were not directly related to the development of the "Armenian Question", except perhaps as indications of the rising discontent within the Gregorian church which the Russians were seeking to take advantage of in their own way.

On the other hand, the Reform Proclamation of 1856 was of major importance. While not abolishing the separate millets and churches and the institutions that they supported, the Ottoman government now provided equal rights for all subjects regardless of their religion, in the process seeking to eliminate all special privileges and distinctions based on religion, and requiring the millets to reconstitute their internal regulations in order to achieve these goals. Insofar as the Armenians were concerned, the result was the Armenian Millet Regulation, drawn up by the Patriarchate and put into force by the Ottoman government on 29 March 1862. Of particular importance the new regulation placed the Armenian millet under the government of a council of 140 members, including only 20 churchmen from the Istanbul Patriarchate, while 80 secular representatives were to be chosen from the Istanbul community and 40 members from the provinces. The Reform Proclamation of 1856 led England and France to be more interested in Armenians which in return intensified the interests of Russia in the same ethnic group. Their concern was based on their own imperialist interests rather than their affection for Armenians. Russia now sought to gain Armenian support for undermining and destroying the Ottoman state by promising to create a "Greater Armenia" in eastern Anatolia, which would include substantially more territory between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean than the Armenians ever had ruled or even occupied at any time in their history.

It was against this background that the Ottoman-Russian war (1877 - 78) awakened Armenian dreams for independence with Russian help and under Russian guidance. Toward the end of the war, the Armenian Patriarch of Istanbul, Nerses Varjabedian, got in touch with the Russian Czar with the help of the Catholicos of Echmiadzin, asking Russia not to return to the Ottomans the east Anatolian lands occupied by Russian forces. Immediately after the war, the Patriarch went to the Russian camp, which by then was at San Stephano, immediately outside Istanbul, and in an interview with the Russian Commander, Grand Duke Nicholas, asked that all of Eastern Anatolia be annexed to Russia and established as an autonomous Armenian state, very much like the regime then being established for Bulgaria, but that if this was not possible, and the lands in question had to be returned to the Ottomans, at least Russian forces should not be withdrawn until changes favoring the Armenians were introduced into the governmental and administrative organization and regulations of these provinces(7). The Russians agreed to the latter proposal, which was incorporated as Article 16 of the Treaty of San Stephano. Even as the negotiations were going on at San Stephano, moreover, the Armenian officers in the Russian army worked frantically to stir discontent among the Ottoman Armenians, urging them to work to gain "the same sort of independence for themselves as that secured by the Christia of the Balkans." This appeal gained considerable influence among the Armenians of Eastern Anatolia long after the Russian forces were withdrawn.

The Treaty of San Stephano did not, however, constitute the final settlement of the Russo-Turkish war. Britain rightly feared that its provisions for a Greater Armenia in the East would inevitably not only establish Russian hegemony in those areas but also, and even more dangerous, in the Ottoman Empire, and through "Greater Armenia" to the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean, where they could easily threaten the British possessions in India. In return for an Ottoman agreement for British occupation of Cyprus, therefore, to enable it to counter any Russian threats in Eastern Anatolia, Britain agreed to use its influence in Europe to upset the provisions of San Stephano, arranging the Congress of Berlin to this end. As a result of its deliberations, Russia was compelled to evacuate all of Eastern Anatolia with the exception of the districts of Kars, Ardahan and Batum, with the Ottomans agreeing to institute "reforms" in the eastern provinces where Armenians lived under the guarantee of the five signatory European powers. From this time onward, England in particular came to consider the "Armenian Question" as its own particular problem, and to regularly intervene to secure its solution according to its own ideas.

A committee sent by the Armenian Patriarchate of Istanbul attended the Congress of Berlin, but it was so unhappy at the final treaty and the Powers' failure to accept its demands that it returned to Istanbul with the feeling that "nothing will be achieved except by means of struggle and revolution." (8) Russia also emerged from the Congress without having achieved its major objectives, and with both Greece, and Bulgaria being left under British influence. It therefore renewed with increased vigor its effort to secure control of Eastern Anatolia, again seeking to use the Armenians as a major instrument of its policy. Now, however, it was resisted in this effort by the British, who also sought to influence and use the Armenians by stirring their national ambitions, though in this respect, in the words of the French writer Rene Pinon, who is in fact known with his pro-Armenian views, "Armenia in British hands would become a police station against Russian expansion." Whether under Russian or British influence, however, the Armenians became pawns to advance imperial ambitions at Ottoman expense.

It had been British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli and the Tories who had defended Ottoman integrity against Russian expansion at the Congress of Berlin. But with the assumption of power by William E. Gladstone and the Liberals in 1880, British policy toward the Ottomans changed drastically to one which sought to protect British interests by breaking up the Ottoman Empire and creating friendly small states under British influence in its place, one of which was to be Armenia. In pursuit of this policy, the British press now was encouraged to refer to eastern Anatolia as "Armenia", British consulates were opened in every corner of the area to provide opportunities for contact with the local Christian population; the numbers of Protestant missionaries sent to the East was substantially increased; and in London an Anglo- Armenian Friendship Committee was created to influence public opinion in support of this new endeavour. The way how Russia and Great Britain used Armenians as a tool for their own ambitions has been adequately documented by numerous Armenian and other foreign sources. Thus, the French Ambassador in Istanbul Paul Cambon reported to the Quai d'Orsay in 1894 that "Gladstone is organizing the dissatisfied Armenians, putting them under discipline and promising them assistance, settling many of them in London with the inspiration of the propaganda committee." Edgar Granville commented that "There was no Armenian movement in Ottoman territory before the Russians stirred them up. Innocent people are going to be hurt because of this dream of a Greater Armenia under the protection of the Czar," and "the Armenian movements intend to attach Eastern Anatolia to Russia." The Armenian writer Kaprielian declared proudly in his book The Armenian Crisis and Rebirth that "the revolutionary promises and inspirations were owed to Russia." The Dashnak newspaper Haircnik in its issue of 28 June 1918 stated that "The awakening of a revolutionary spirit among the Armenians in Turkey was the result of Russian stimulation." The Armenian Patriarch Horen Ashikian wrote in his History of Armenia "The protestant missionaries distributed in large numbers to various places in Turkey made propaganda in favor of England and stirred the Armenians to desire autonomy under British protection. The schools that they established were the nurseries of their secret plans." And the Armenian religious leader Hrant Vartabed wrote that "The establishment of protestant communities in Ottoman territory and their protection by England and the United States shows that they did not shrink from exploiting even the most sacred feelings of the West, religious feelings, in seeking civilization", going on to state that the Catholicos of Echmiadzin Kevork V was a tool ofCzarist Russia and that he betrayed the Armenians of Anatolia..(9)

In pursuit of these policies, starting in 1880 a number of Armenian revolutionary societies were established in Eastern Anatolia, the Black Cross and Armenian societies in Van and the National Guards in Erzurum. However these societies had little influence, since the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire still lived in peace and prosperity and had no real complaints against Ottoman administration. With the passage of time, therefore, these and other such Armenian societies within the Empire fell into inactivity and largely ceased operations. The Armenian nationalists therefore moved to center their organizations outside Ottoman territory, establishing the Hunchak Committee at Geneva in 1887 and the Dashnak Committee at Tiflis in 1 890, both of which declared to be their basic goal the "liberation" from Ottoman rule of the territories of Eastern Anatolia and the Ottoman Armenians.

According to Eouise Nalbandian, a leading Armenian researcher into Armenian propaganda, the Hunchak program stated that:

"Agitation and terror were needed to "elevate the spirit" of the people. The people were also to be incited against their enemies and were to "profit from retaliatory actions of these same enemies. Terror was to be used as a method of protecting the people and winning their confidence in the Hunchak program. The party aimed at terrorizing the Ottoman government, thus contributing toward lowering the prestige of that regime and working toward its complete disintegration. The government itself was not to be the only focus of terroristic tactics. The Hunchaks wanted to annihilate the most dangerous of the Armenian and Turkish individuals who were then working for the government as well as to destroy all spies and informers. To assist them in carrying out all of these terroristic acts, the party was to organize an exclusive branch specifically devoted to performing acts of terrorism. The most opportune time to institute the general rebellion for carrying out immediate objectives was when Turkey was engaged in war."(10)

K. S. Papazian wrote of the Dashnak Society:

"The purpose of the A. R. Federation (Dashnak) is to achieve political and economic freedom in Turkish Armenia, by means of rebellion ... terrorism has, from the first, been adopted by the Dashnak Committee of the Caucasus, as a policy or a method for achieving its ends. Under the heading "means" in their program adopted in 1892, we read as follows: The Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnak), in order to achieve its purpose through rebellion, organizes revolutionary groups. Method no. 8 is as follows: To wage fight, and to subject to terrorism the Government officials, the traitors, ... Method no. 11 is: To subject the government institutions to destruction and pillage. "(II)

One of the Dashnak founders and ideologists. Dr. Jean Loris-Melikoff wrote that:

"The truth is that the party (Dashnak Committee) was ruled by an oligarchy, for whom the particular interests of the party came before the interests of the people and nation.. They (the Dashnaks) made collections among the bourgeoisie and the great merchants. At the end, when these means were exhausted, they resorted to terrorism, after the teachings of the Russian revolutionaries that the end justifies the means.''(12)

The same policy was described by the Dashnak ideologist Varandian, in History of the Dashnakzoutune (Paris, 1932).

Thus as Armenian writers themselves have freely admitted, the goal of their revolutionary societies was to stir revolution, and their method was terror. They lost no time in putting their programs into operation, stirring a number of revolt efforts within a short time, with the Hunches taking the lead at first, and then the Dashnaks following, planning and organizing their efforts outside the Ottoman Empire before carrying them out within the boundaries of the Sultan's dominions.

The first revolt came at Erzumm in 1890. It was followed by the Kumkapi riots in Istanbul the same year, and then risings in Kayseri, Yozgat, (Çorum and Merzifon in 1892 - 1893, in Sasun in 1894, the Zeytun revolt and the Armenian raid on the Sublime Porte in 1895, the Van revolt and occupation of the Ottoman Bank in Istanbul in 1896, the Second Sasun revolt in 1903, the attempted assassination of Sultan Abdulhamid II in 1905, and the Adana revolt in 1909. All these revolts and riots were presented by the Armenian revolutionary societies in Europe and America as the killing of Armenians by Turks, and with this sort of propaganda message they stirred considerable emotion among Christian peoples. The missionaries and consular representatives sent by the Powers to Anatolia played major roles in spreading this propaganda in the western press, thus carrying out the aims of the western powers to turn public opinion against Muslims and Turks to gain the necessary support to break up the Ottoman Empire.

There were many honest western diplomatic and consular representatives who reported what actually was happening, that it was the Armenian revolutionary societies that were doing the revolting and slaughtering and massacring to secure European intervention in their behalf.

In 1876, the British Ambassador in Istanbul reported that the Armenian Patriarch had said to him:

"'If revolution is necessary to attract the attention and intervention of Europe, it would not be hard to do so."(13)

On 28 March 1894 the British Ambassador in Istanbul, Currie reported to the Foreign Office:

"The aim of the Armenian revolutionaries is to stir disturbances, to get the Ottomans to react to violence, and thus get the foreign Powers to intervene."(14)

On 28 January 1895 the British Consul in Erzumm, Graves reported to the British Ambassador in Istanbul:

"The aims of the revolutionary committees are to stir up general discontent and to get the Turkish government and people to react with violence, thus attracting the attention of the foreign powers to the imagined sufferings of the Armenian people, and getting them to act to correct the situation." (15)

Graves also told New York Herald reporter Sydney Whitman that:


"If no Armenian revolutionary had come to this country, if they had not stirred Armenian revolution, would these clashes have occurred ", answering "Of course not. I doubt if a single Armenian would have been killed. "(16)

The British Vice-Consul Williams wrote from Van on 4 March 1896:

"The Dashnaks and Hunchaks have terrorized their own countrymen, they have stirred up the Muslim people with their thefts and insanities, and have paralyzed all efforts made to carry out reforms; all the events that have taken place in Anatolia are the responsibility of the crimes committed by the Armenian revolutionary committees."(17)

British Consul General in Adana, Doughty Wily, wrote in 1909:

"The Armenians are working to secure foreign intervention." (18)

Russian Consul General in Bitlis and Van, General Mayewski, reported in 1912:

" I n 1895 and 1896 the Armenian revolutionary committees created such suspicion between the Armenians and the native population that it became impossible to implement any sort of reform in these districts. The Armenian priests paid no attention to religious education, but instead concentrated on spreading nationalist ideas, which were affixed to the walls of monasteries, and in place of performing their religious duties they concentrated on stirring Christian enmity against Muslims. The revolts that took place in many provinces of Turkey during 1895 and 1896 were caused neither by any great poverty among the Armenian villages nor because of Muslim attacks against them. In fact these villagers were considerably richer and more prosperous than their neighbors. Rather, the Armenian revolts came from three causes:
1. Their increasing maturity in political subjects;
2.The spread of ideas of nationality, liberation, and independence within the Armenian community;
3.Support of these ideas by the western governments, and their encouragement through the efforts ofthe Armenian priests.''(19)

In another report in December 1912, Mayewski wrote that:

"The Dashnak revolutionary society is working to stir up a situation in which Muslims and Armenians will attack each other, and to thus pave the way for Russian intervention. "(20)

Finally, the Dashnak ideologue Varandian admits that the society "wanted to assure European intervention,"(21) while Papazian stated that "the aims of their revolts was to assure that the European powers would mix into Ottoman internal affairs. "(22). At each of their armed revolts the Armenian terrorist committees have always propagated that European intervention would immediately follow. Even some of the committee members believed in this propaganda. In fact, during the occupation of the Ottoman Bank in Istanbul the Armenian terrorist Armen Aknomi committed suicide after having waited in desperation the arrival of the British fleet. It can be seen thus that the basis for the Armenian revolts was not poverty, nor was it oppression or the desire for reform; rather, it was simply the result of a joint effort on the part of the Armenian revolutionary committees and the Armenian church, in conjunction with the Western Powers and Russia, to provide the basis to break up the Ottoman Empire.

In reaction to these revolts, the Ottomans did what other states did in such circumstances, sending armed forces against the rebels to restore order, and for the most part succeeding quickly since very few of the Armenian populace supported or helped the rebels or the revolutionary societies. However for the press and public of Europe, stirred by tales spread by the missionaries and the revolutionary societies themselves, every Ottoman restoration of order was automatically considered a "massacre" of Christians, with the thousands of slaughtered Muslims being ignored and Christian claims against Muslims automatically accepted. In many cases, the European states not only intervened to prevent the Ottomans from restoring order, but also secured the release of many captured terrorists, including those involved in the Zeytun revolt, the occupation of the Ottoman Bank, and the attempted assassination of Sultan Abdulhamid. While most of these were expelled from the Ottoman Empire, with the cooperation of their European sponsors, it did not take long for them to secure forged passports and other documents and to return to Ottoman territory to resume their terroristic activities. Whatever were the claims of the Armenian revolutionary societies and whatever the ambitions of the imperial powers of Europe, there was one major fact which they simply could not ignore. The Armenians comprised a very small minority of the population in the territories being claimed in their name, namely the six eastern districts claimed as "historic Armenia" (Erzurum, Bitlis, Van, Elaziz, Diyarbakir and Sivas), the two provinces claimed to comprise "Armenian Cilicia" (Aleppo and Adana) and finally Trabzon which was later claimed to have an outlet to the Black Sea coast. Even the French Yellow Book, which among western sources made the largest Armenian population claims, still showed them in a sizeable minority:

Total Population - Gregorian Armenian Population - Armenian Percent of Total Population
Erzurum 645,702 -134,967 - 20,90
Bitlis 398,625 - 131,390 - 32,96
Van 430,000 - 80,798 - 18,79
Elaziz 578,814 - 69,718 - 12,04
Diyarbakır 471,462 - 79,129 - 16,78
Sivas 1,086,015 - 170,433 - 15,68
Adana 403,539 - 97,450 - 24,14
Aleppo 995,758 - 37,999 - 3,81
Trabzon 1,047,700 - 47,200 - 4,50


Thus even by these extreme claims, the Armenians still constituted no more than one third of the provinces' population. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1910, the Armenians were only 15 percent of the area's population as a whole, making it very unlikely that they could in fact achieve independence in any part of the Ottoman Empire without the massive foreign assistance that would have been required to push out the Turkish majorities and replace them with Armenian emigrants.

Russia in fact was only using the Armenians for its own ends. It had no real intention of establishing Armenian independence, either within its own dominions or in Ottoman territory. Almost as soon as the Russians took over the Caucasus, they adopted a policy of Russifying the Armenians as well as establishing their own control over the Armenian Gregorian church in their territory. By virtue of the Polijenia Law of 1836, the powers and duties of the Catholicos of Etchmiadzin were restricted, while his appointment was to be made by the Czar. In 1882 all Armenian newspapers and schools in the Russian Empire were closed, and in 1903 the state took direct control of all the financial resources of the Armenian Church as well as Armenian establishments and schools. At the same time Russian Foreign Minister Lobanov-Rostowsky adopted his famous goal of "An Armenia -without Armenians", a slogan which has been deliberately attributed to the Ottoman administration by some Armenian propagandists and writers in recent years. Whatever the reason, Russian oppression of the Armenians was severe. The Armenian historian Vartanian relates in his History of the Armenian Movement that "Ottoman Armenia was completely free in its traditions, religion, culture and language in comparison to Russian Armenia under the Czars." Edgar Granville writes, "The Ottoman Empire was the Armenians' only shelter against Russian oppression."

That Russian intentions were to use the Armenians to annex Eastern Anatolia and not to create an independent Armenia is shown by what happened during World War I. In the secret agreements made among the Entente powers to divide the Ottoman Empire, the territory which the Russians had promised to the Armenians as an autonomous or independent territory was summarily divided between Russia and France without any mention of the Armenians, while the Czar replied to the protests of the Catholicos of Etchmiadzin only that "Russia has no Armenian problem." The Armenian writer Borian thus concludes:

"Czarist Russia at no time wanted to assure Armenian autonomy. For this reason one must consider the Armenians who were working/or Armenian autonomy as no more than agents of the Czar to attach Eastern Anatolia to Russia."

The Russians thus have deceived the Armenians for years; and as a result the Armenians have been left with nothing more than an empty dream.


(7) URAS, Esat, op. cit, pp. 212 - 215.
(8) URAS, Esat, op. cit., pp. 250 - 251.
(9) SCHEMSI. Kara. op. cit., pp. 20 - 21.
(10) NALBANDIAN, Louise, Armenian Revolutionary Movement, University of California Press, 1963, pp.110-111.
(11) PAPAZIAN, K. S., Patriotism Perverted, Boston, Baker Press, 1934, pp. 14-15.
(12) LORIS-MELIKOFF, Dr. Jean, la Revolution Russe et les Nouvelles Republiques Transcaucasiennes, Paris, 1920, p.81.
(13) URAS, Esat; op. cit., p.188.
(14) British Blue Book, Nr. 6 (1894), p. S7.
(15) British Blue Book, Nr. 6 (1894), pp. 222 - 223.
(16) URAS, Esat, op. cit., p. 426.
(17) British Blue Book, Nr. 8 (1896), p.108.
(18) SCHEMSI, Kara, op. cit., p. 11.
(19) General MAYEWSKI, Statistique des Provinces de Van et de Bitlis, pp.11-13, Petersburg, 1916.'
(20) SCHEMSI, Kara, op. cit., p.l I.
(21) VARANDIAN, Mikayel, History of the Dashnagtzoutune, Paris, 1932, p. 302.
(22) PAPAZIAN, K. S., op. cit, p. 19.

Vote Armenian Genocide / Ermeni Soykırımına HAYIR de!

Ermeni soykırmı gerçek midir yalan mıdır? adlı bir anket var http://votearmeniangenocide.blogspot.com da. Buraya girip oylamaya katılabilirsiniz.

INSTRUCTIONS ON THE RELOCATION LAW AND ITS APPLICATION

The Ottoman Government based the Relocation Law on the conditions of that time. It is not an arbitrary application or it is not only a governmental instruction. The law is revealed in "Document 6" and it has four articles. It concerns "the measurements that obliged to be taken against government dissidents in an event of war." 18

The first article of the Relocation Law says, "In the event of opposition of the governmental forces or the government's order and in the event of any armed resistance, the subjected people will be punished." The second article says, "the locals whose treachery and espionage are certain would be relocated to other regions". The third article confirms the validity of the law and the fourth article states the responsibilities concerning the law.

As seen, the relocation - resettlement law passed to maintain the security of the country and the authority of the government. The most significant characteristic of the law is, there is no implication for its application on a certain ethnic group or community. The law was implemented among Muslim, Greek and Armenian citizens whose guilt were constant. Consequently, to evaluate Relocation Law as it was implemented only among Armenians would be wrong.

As it may seen in the last section, the implementation of the resettlement was left to the interpretation and ability of the administrators, and the details of the administrators' responsibilities have not explained. 19 There are many detailed decisions and instructions on determining the possessions of the immigrants. The feeding of the immigrants was explained as well.

The regulation that explains the implementation of Law of Relocation and Resettlement has not any implication of destruction of any property or any person. On the contrary, the problems occurred during migration was solved by lawful punishments. 17 Razdel Azaiatskoy Turtsii Po Sekretnım Dokumentom Bıvşego Miniterstva İnostrannıh Del. Sostovitel E. A. Adamov, Moscow, 1924 no: CXL, p. 207-210 18 Takvim-i vekayi Newspaper, 1 June 1915, the Law was accepted on 27 May 1915 19 Ottoman Archives, Meclis-, Vükela Muzakeratına Mahsus Zabıtname, 17 May 1915

If the Ottoman Government had an intention to annihilate the entire Armenian community, it would not have recorded every detail of the migration as the facilities revealed to the immigrants, protection of the convoys, medical care of the sick immigrants, children's care, registrations of their prosperity they have left. A detailed study of the last section would reveal that the Ottoman government has maintained the protection of their properties. This regulation can be interpreted as the Ottoman government applied relocation as a temporary measurement to protect its borders against the invaders. The application of temporary settlements for the Armenians in Anotolia proves this thesis. However, increasing Russo-French incitements on Armenians and American's financial support to the Armenian bandits hindered a temporary resettlement and a part of the Armenians had been settled in Syria. As in that period Syria was an Ottoman border, even the Armenian resettlement in this region was not banishment.

IS SEVRES AGREEMENT STILL VALID?

The Armenian propaganda alleges that Sevres Agreement is still valid and in force for them and on this basis, suggest that the "Armenian territories" set forth in Sevres should be returned to them.


It is hard to tell how such a nonsensical allegation could be acceptable when it is considered that the states who undersigned this agreement came to an end prior to the enforcement of the agreement and ratified by their signatures that Lausannes agreement superseded it. On the other hand, there are agreements signed by the Armenians themselves as a state.


The most eminent one of these is Batum Agreement. Tashnaks declared an Armenian Republic in Erivan on 28 May 1918 and the Ottoman State recognized such Republic through Batum Agreement concluded with the Armenians on 4 June 1918.


Foreign Minister of the Armenian Republic told the following after this agreement:


"Turkey's Armenians do not intend to depart from the Ottoman Empire any more. Problems concerning the Armenians in Turkey can not even be subject to negotiations between the Ottomans and the Armenian Republic. The relationships between the Ottoman Empire and the Armenian Republic are perfect and should be the same in the future, as well. All Armenian political parties share the same opinion on this matter. Continuance of these good neighborhood relationships is one of the major points of the Armenian Government, in which I am the Foreign Minister."43


Tashnak press organ Hairenik wrote the following in its issue of 28 June 1918:


"The hostile policy followed by Russia against Turkey was encouraging Caucasian Armenians as well. Caucasian Armenians caused the conflicts between two friendly elements. Fortunately, this did not last long. Caucasian Armenians understood that their security would be ensured only in Turkey and reached out their hands to Turkey. Turkey also wanted to forget what had happened in the past and shook hands with a knight's spirit. We admit that the Armenian problem is now settled and remained in the past. Mutual lack of confidence and hostility, caused by some adventurous foreign agents, should be eliminated."44


We can derive the following results from these interesting statements:


a) Armenian problem is over.
b) Russians and Armenians are responsible for the events, not Turks.
c) If there was an unjustness, it was Turks who suffered it.


As it is seen, the fact that what we are saying today is true was confessed by the Tashnaks 64 years ago, in 1918. However, despite these clear confessions, the problem would not be deemed to be closed by the Armenians and Armenian milieus would forget their confessions and pursue their old dreams at the first opportunity. As a matter of fact, Armenian gang operation continued despite Batum agreement.


Defeat of Ottoman Empire in the 1st World War and execution of Mondros Armistice Agreement on 30 October 1918 reactivated the Armenians.

Caucasian Armenian Republic under the control of Tashnak, who were pursuing great expectations, declared that they "annexed Turkish Armenia" on 28 May 1919, which was the first anniversary of its foundation. This declaration was taken seriously by nobody but Entente States.


Paris Peace Conference resulted with Sevres dictate left the issue of Armenia's borders to the arbitration of USA President Wilson, and Wilson sent an American delegation under the presidency of General James G. Harbord to Turkey in autumn 1919 to make examinations. Harbord delegation, having conducted examinations in Turkey in September and October 1919, submitted its conclusions in the form of a report to the US Congress. In this report, reflecting the truths, it was established that "Turks and Armenians lived side by side in peace during centuries, Turks suffered as much as the Armenians during deportation, Turkish villages were burnt down, maximum 20% of the Turkish peasants who went to the war could return, Armenians were never in majority at the regions called Turkish Armenia at the beginning of the 1st World War, the deported Armenians would not be capable of constituting the majority in even a single location in case of their return, the returning Armenians were not endangered and the sad and terrible allegations on the incidents were not true".45 Upon this report, the US Congress rejected to be a mandate for Armenia in April 1920. On 10 August 1920, Sevres Agreement that once more gave hope to the Armenians was concluded. The Agreement was providing that the Ottoman State recognize Armenia as a free and independent state and left the determination of the border to the arbitration of Wilson.


As it is known, there were two governments in Turkey on 10 August 1920; the Ottoman Government in Istanbul and the National Assembly Government in Ankara. It was the Ottoman Government who signed Sevres. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's Ankara Government would settle the "Armenian Issue" on its own.


Following Mondros Armistice Agreement, France occupied Adana province and England occupied Urfa, Maraş and Antep. Later on, England left its occupied regions over to France and the Armenians brought together by the French and dressed with French uniforms started to attack the Turks. This cruelty received the response of Turks and the Turkish resistance was organized against French-Armenian occupation. Thereafter, the propaganda that the Turks were murdering the Armenians was initiated; however, this time primarily the French command and nobody believed the Armenians.


Following the rejection of mandate for Armenia by the US Congress, regular units and gangs subsidiary to Caucasian Armenian Republic launched an attack against Turkey in June 1920, Ankara Government ordered a counter-attack in September and the Turkish forces severely defeated the Armenians and rescued all Turkish territories including Kars and entered Gümrü by crossing the border. Upon the peace request of the Armenian Government after this defeat, Gümrü (Alexandropol) Agreement was concluded on 3 December 1920. The Armenians admitted through this agreement that Sevres was ineffective and officially abandoned their land claims against Turkey.


However, the Red Army entered Erivan before the ratification of this agreement and the Soviet Armenian Government was founded.


The rule in Erivan was again taken by the Tashnaks through the rebellion initiated by Vratzian on 18 February 1921. Vratzian Government sent a delegation to Ankara on 18 March and requested assistance from Ankara Government against Bolsheviks. It is a strange occurrence of history that the Tashnak Government, who had declared only two years ago that they had annexed the Eastern Anatolian territory, were requesting the assistance of Ankara to survive.


This Tashnak Government did not last long and the Soviets came to rule again in Erivan.


Turkey concluded Moscow Agreement with Soviet Union on 16 March 1921. To complement this agreement, Kars Agreement was concluded with Soviet Armenia on 13 October 1921. Both agreements included provisions that Sevres was not recognized. Therefore, Soviet Armenian Government abandoned all claims following the Tashnak Government and the ineffectiveness of Sevres was documented once more.

Shahverdof, Justice and Labor Commissary of Soviet Armenia emphasized in the speech he delivered at the signing ceremony of Kars Agreement that, "it would not be possible to make those two nations offend each other for the interests of others".


Following the liquidation of eastern frontier in this manner, southern frontier was also liquidated upon the agreement concluded with France on 20 October 1921 and the French forces withdrew by taking the Armenian legion and local committee members they had brought together, and took most of the local Armenian people almost by force and settled them in Lebanon. The same incident would be witnessed in Hatay's joining the homeland.


Lausanne Agreement, which was concluded on 24 July 1923 and replaced Sevres, included no provision about Armenians.


Thus, the issue was completely resolved by Lausanne. Present allegations of the Armenians based on Sevres make no sense at all.

While closing, it would be convenient to remind that Sevres agreement was not approved by the nations who were parties to it.


Footnotes:


(43) SCHEMSI, Kara; op. Cit., p. 31
(44) SCHEMSI, Kara; op. Cit., pp. 31-32
(45) URAS, Esat; a.g.e., pp. 682-683

THE ARMENIANS IN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE AND THE FIRST WORLD WAR PERIOD

The Nations History beside its characteristic to be the history of struggles, is a heap of unknown facts and dark points. Thus, there is an intention to conceal some pages of history or the reality is totally denied.

A very vivid example of this intention is with no doubt the Turkish-Armenian relations. Before the Turks came, nearly one thousand years ago, the Armenians had been banished to the different parts of Anatolia by the Romans, Persians and the Byzantine Empire. After the Turks have dominated this region, they brought justice to all the peoples living in Anatolia. Armenians were among those peoples. Turks are traditionally fair and Islam is the religion of tolerance. The relations between the Turks and the Armenians have reached its peak in the 19th century and this period became the golden age of the Armenians. Moreover, the Armenians were one of the most comfortable Ottoman subjects. They were exempted from military service and from most of the taxes. Thus, they found the chance to progress in arts, crafts, commerce, agriculture and administrative duties. The Ottoman Empire has named its Armenian subjects as "millet-i sadıka" (loyalist nation) and "tebaa-ı sadıka" (loyalist subjects). The Armenian subjects of the empire were speaking Turkish everywhere moreover they held their religious ceremonies in Turkish. They have promoted to the significant levels of government. Most of the under-secretaries of the Ottoman government were Armenians as in the ministries for navy, public works, foreign relations, finance, treasury, post-telegram, minting. During the First Constitutional period there were nine Armenian deputies in the council and during the Second Constitutional Period the number of the Armenian deputies was eleven. In 1914, there were twelve deputies in the government council and the total number of the Armenian governmental officials was twelve thousand. There are many Armenian writers who wrote researches on the Ottoman governmental affairs.1 On one-side birthrights of the Ottoman subjects, on the other side the rights and the concessions granted by the sultan made the Armenians the most favored and privileged community among all other communities, even the Muslims.

However, in the regression period of the Ottoman Empire, the European interference in every issue of the government became evident, unfortunately this malicious involvement planted the seeds of enmity between the Turks and the Armenians. The European spies especially whom in disguise of Christian missionaries entered the empire, even they carried their provocation and agitation activities in the hearth of the government. Those spies succeeded to alienate the Armenians towards the government. Moreover, they have supported and provoked the Armenian committee members to be armed against the Ottoman Army and of course innocent, civilian Turks. Thus, the events mostly ended disadvantageously for the Turks blurted out. During the revolts and street fights had begun in the East Anatolia and spread through Istanbul, in the end thousands of Turks and Armenians have died.

During the First World War, there were many Armenians who fought side by side with the Turks, but unfortunately the number of the Armenians who have sided with the Russians or other enemies of the empire is plenty. Moreover, many of these Armenian Committee members killed thousands of innocent women, children or the aged. They destroyed Anatolia by killing thousands of Muslims.

The measurements taken by the government were exploited and the Armenians- believing in the promises given by the Entente Powers- began to destroy the homeland which they shared with the Turks for many centuries. Thus, in 1887, an organization was formed in Geneva, named Hunchak. In Tiflis, in 1890, another Armenian Committee was founded, named Dashnaktsutium. Ramgavar and Hunchak Revolution Committee followed this, next the Armed Committee (1880) came. Straight Through Armenia Committee, Young Armenia Committee, Progress and Salvation Committee (1872) and Blackcross Committee (1882) were among the armed organizations. Some of the important events led by these organizations are as follow: 2

a. Zeytun Revolts
b. Kayseri Revolts
c. Bitlis Revolts
d. Van Revolts
e. Mus Revolts
f. Diyarbakir Revolts
g. Elazig Revolts
h. Erzurum Revolts
i. Sivas Revolts
j. Ankara Revolts
k. Adana Revolts
l. Urfa Revolts
m. Izmit Revolts
n. Adapazari Revolts
o. Musadagi Revolts
p. Izmir Revolts
q. Istanbul Revolts
r. Maras Revolts
s. Antep Revolts
t. Aleppo Revolts

The revolts mentioned above should be evaluated without any comparison to the current social events. The seriousness of these events is still horrifying. Armenians who lived side by side with the Turks for many centuries how and under what conditions made such brutal activities? These activities should be analyzed by the methods of psycho-sociology. The telegram which is reveled in "Document 1" is one of the most shameful records in history: "... Until now, in Erzurum City 2.121 Muslim corpses were buried. All of them are males. All corpses have axe, bayonet and led wounds. Their livers were taken of and there pointed piles in their eyes..." 1

Despite war conditions, the government had tried to solve the problem by local measurements for nine-ten months. At last, the government realized that these local measurements were not capable of bringing peace to the region and decided to resettle the Armenian locals in peaceful regions.

The Armenian enmity against the Turks began with the voluntary Armenian troops in the Russian Army and it was carried out French Legion and at last Armenian thuggery had reach its peak in the beginning of the 20th century.

The result of Armenian enmity was a disaster for both sides. 2 millions and 500 thousands of Turks had been killed by the Armenians and approximately 200 thousands of Armenians had lost their lives in the wars, revolts and during relocation. Anatolia was systematically destroyed, from her smallest village to the big cities. The Armenians who were deceived by fake promises by the European powers had left alone to their own destinies in the end. Many of them left their homelands with no other choice.



(1) see Goyunc, Nejat. Osmanli Idaresinde Ermeniler (The Armenians under Ottoman Administration), Istanbul, 1983
(2) see. Suslu, Azmi. Türk Tarihinde Ermeniler (Armenians in the Turkish History). Kafkas Uni. Press, Ankara, 1995

Khojaly Genocide by Armenia / Hocalı Soykırmı

The history is teaching us the real lessons of human mankind. Khojaly tragedy perpetrated by Armenians on February 25-26, 1992. Khojaly tragedy is enshrined at the memory of our history by a bloody line. The Republic of Azerbaijan has done a lot for the dissemination of the historical truth on Armenian crimes. Azerbaijani nation today remembers how it was painful for those who saved their lives from the hand of Armenian criminals.

Watch the video and see the real face of Armenia!

Reference: http://www.khojaly.net

ARE THE ARMENIANS OF TURKEY BEING OPPRESSED TODAY ?

Armenian nationalist propagandists from time to time claim that the Armenians of Turkey are being persecuted. This is done, not only to reinforce their claims that the Turks persecuted Armenians throughout history, but also to provide a unifying bond for Armenian action groups and to get foreign states to intervene in Turkish internal affairs. Like the other Armenian claims, this also is not based on fact.

The 40,000 - 50,000 Armenians living in Turkey today are in no way separated from the remainder of the population. They are full Turkish citizens, with the same rights and privileges as other Turkish citizens, with their lives, liberties and happiness guaranteed by law. The Armenians of Turkey continue to worship in their own churches and teach in their own language in their own schools. They publish newspapers, books and magazines in Armenian and have their own social and cultural institutions in addition to participating fully in those open to all Turks. The Armenian community in Istanbul has 30 schools, 17 cultural and social organizations, two daily newspapers called Jamanak and Marmara, two sports clubs, named Shishly (Şisli) and Taksim, and many health establishments as well as numerous religious foundations set up to support these activities.

Most of the Turkish Armenians continue to be Gregorian, and are led by a Patriarch. In addition there are a number of Catholic and Protestant Armenians who have their own churches and other institutions.

The Armenians of Turkey are as free to live prosperous and happy lives as are Turks of other religions. Many of them are prosperous merchants as well as leading members of the arts and professions. The Armenians of Turkey are proud to be Turkish citizens and, along with all other Turks, deeply resent the lies about their country spread in their name by outside Armenian nationalists. In particular they abhorred the terroristic attacks carried out by these groups on Turkish diplomats, citizens; and interests throughout the world.

On November 1st 1981 the Armenian Patriarch held a memorial service at the Patriarchate to commemorate the Turkish diplomats slaughtered by Armenian terrorists and to condemn these acts done in the name of the Armenian people. In February 1982 the Patriarch vigorously denied the claims made by the Council of Europe that Turkey is oppressing its minorities, stating "The Armenians of Turkey are Turkish citizens, they live in peace in Turkey, they practice their religion freely and benefit from the freedom of belief." Following the Armenian terrorist assassination of Turkish Consul-General Kemal Ankan in Los Angeles on 28 January, 1982, the Armenian Patriarch stated "The Turkish Armenians, like all other Turkish citizens, learned of this with great sorrow", and appealed for "all Armenians living outside Turkey to rise up against these illegal activities and murders." Turkish Armenians themselves thus put the lie to the claims of the Armenian propagandists.

Last Word for Armenian Genocide Allegations

Armenian genocide allegations caused many murders. The Armenian efforts on this ideal had always been bloody. The remnants of the murderers of thousands of Turks in Anatolia, Cemal and Talat Pashas still retain their violent approaches. Between 1973 and 1985 ASALA terrorist organization undertook many attacks against Turkish diplomats, Turkish people and Turkish work-sites. Despite all these violent events, the Western World remained in silence and boosted the morels of the terrorists by their indifference.

The Armenian allegations consist of three targets, these are:

a. Affirmation of the political, economical and military powers of the world on the Armenian Genocide and maintenance of records on this issue by central and local administrations,

b. Compensation demand based on the concerned decisions and put economic pressure on the Republic of Turkey as the heir of the Ottoman Empire,

c. Following the collection of compensation to represent the demand of lands. After, the concealed leader of the Dashnaktsutium organization Koceryan took the presidency of the Armenian State, said strategy has been accelerated. The entire scenery is directed to the wholeness of the Republic of Turkey. This strategy became the ideal of today's Armenia. An analyze of three documents of today's Armenia clarifies this fact. These documents are, the Independence Proclamation, Independence Decision and the Constitution. 12th Article of the Independence Proclamation of Armenia Soviet Socialist Republic dated 23 August 1990 says, "The Republic of Armenia will support all the efforts for the international affirmation of the genocide occurred in Ottoman Turkey and in Western Armenia, in 1915". The same issue was accepted in Independence Resolution of the Armenian Parliament dated 23 September 1991, which says "Armenia will be loyal to the Independence Proclamation". With Constitution of 1995, Armenia declared that it will be loyal to the national objectives of the Independence Proclamation by force of law. Thus, the Armenian evil intents on Eastern Turkey as the Armenians name "Western Armenia" has revealed to the entire world.

If we focus from this point of view, we should touch upon the conventions of NATO and ESDI. Both conventions guarantees the integrity of the member states.

As known NATO is a military Pact and it does not need any further explanation. Paris Condition of ESDI guarantees the integrity of the member states. Imagine a member state that demands land from Turkey, moreover names East Turkey as "Western Armenia". In addition NATO and ESDI remain in silence.

As I have mentioned in the foreword, today Turkey, with her 70.000.000 young population desires to live in peace and harmony with all her neighbors, by forgetting the painful days of the past and historical enmities. Turkey adopts "Peace in Home, Peace in World" principle of her founder Mustafa Kemal ATATURK.