THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE LIE

Bize Destek Ver, Hep beraber Ermeni Soykırımı Yalanına Dur Diyelim!

2008-05-09T09:04:00.000-07:00

Şu an birisi google.com'a "armenian genocide" yazsa doğrudan Ermeni Diasporasının teziyle karşılaşacaktır çünkü biz Türkler hiç kendimizi ifade edemiyoruz. Ermeni Diasporası ve Türkler arasındaki bu internet savaşını kazanmak için haydi bu kampanyaya katılın!

Aşağıdaki html kodu bloglarımıza/web sitelerimize kopyalayarak herkese, tüm dünyaya "Ermeni Soykırımı Yalandır" diyerek haykıralım. Destek çok önemli, ne kadar çok kişi bu kodu kopyalarsa o kadar çok kişinin zihnine "Ermeni Soykırımı Yalandır" diye kazınacaktır!

Kod şu şekilde gözükecektir.

The Realities and Questions to think about:

2008-03-13T23:18:00.000-07:00

- Do you know while diaspora Armenians spend million dollars for anti-turkish propaganda, their own people Armenians are dying of hunger and cold weather in Yerevan / Armenia?

- Do you know that 20% of Azerbaijan Lands have been under Armenian occupation since 1992?

- While some Armenians erect monuments dedicated to the memorial of 1.500.000" Armenians slaughtered by "Turkish Government" in 1915 without knowing that there had not been a Turkish Government in 1915.

- Also Armenian Diaspora and its strong supporters used distorted photos in order to propagate world public opinion about so-called Armenian Genocide, lets discover the truth behind them.Do not let one-sided Armenian propaganda take you in forgeries and do not let Armenians make you know both-sided 1915 tragedy as "Armenian Genocide".

Armenian Terror ! Asala

2007-10-11T10:48:00.000-07:00

The history must be objective, the genocide term is very sensitive! Watch the video to see the realities that world media does not tell you!

ASALA Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia

2007-05-08T00:13:00.000-07:00

ARMENIAN TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS

ASALA-"Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia"

ASALA is the most talked-about Armenian terrorist organization, in the new period of the Armenian terrorism between 1973 and 1985. The firm information about its foundation, organization structure and activities are yet to be published. Various Armenian sources and publications give some information about some people and ASALA, and they often announce the results obtained from the publications of this organization and terrorist group. The information includes those desired to be disseminated or those which are not found inappropriate to announce. From one standpoint, ASALA's foundation is attributable to incidents emerged in Lebanon, it is regarded as part of activities of Palestinian Liberation Organizations in Lebanon, and it is supported that it is these activities which have inspired its foundation. On the other hand according to some publications, several Armenians gathered and founded a new terrorist organization which created the most striking and efficient terrorist activities in a short period of time. All of these are far from fully explaining the foundation of ASALA. The existing hesitations will continue for a long time unless the conditions under which ASALA has emerged as an organization, is known and the gap it has filled has been satisfactorily clarified.

First of all, it must be known that the first movements of the Armenian terrorism in the new period have emerged as a requirement of the policies and objectives of the Tashnak Armenian terrorist organization. It has been clarified with various evidence that Tashnaks have completely supported the western view in the historical process and in the described period and that they have pursued a policy based on the Turkish objectives and implementing terrorism at a limited level. Actually, neither their structure nor their historical development is suitable to display any approach and conduct other than above. There is a gap in this environment. An attractive future, closely concerning the Marxist and new revolutionary generations and called new Armenian resistance organizations in particular as put in France, is presumed to be a gap related to the Soviets and the Eastern countries. In fact, this field has been already filled long time ago by Hınchaks. And since 1960, Hınchaks have been paving the ground for the new terrorism with various views. However, Hınchaks do not appear around, and a new terrorist organization called ASALA emerges with the desire to be seen as new in every aspect. Considering the preparatory factors of the new Armenian terrorism and reviewing in particular Hınchaks' goals, policies and objectives may lead us to think that Hınchaks constitute a terrorist group. Nevertheless, the conditions in Lebanon, new developments caused this group to appear before the world public opinion as a new Armenian Terrorist group, and this organization has become known with the terrorist incidents for which it has claimed responsibility. Actually, there is no remarkable change in the situation. In the historical process, both terrorist organizations are on the stage. One is more evident with its terrorist groups and teams, while the other is invisible with all manpower, experience in addition to the immaterial and psychological support remain under a cover of an Armenian terrorist group, and this group performs terrorist acts through groups and teams of lower level.

1. Foundation and Organization Structure

ASALA was founded in 1975. Of its founders comprised of 6-7 members, Agop Agopyan, one of the two most active members of the terrorist organization, was the known leader. The other was Agop Tarakçıyan who performed the murder acts himself and terrorist incidents and who made the organization survive while Agop Agopyan was absent. The latter died in 1981. The former remained as the leader of the organization except the periods of various injuries and treatments. He came to be known as a worker of the Palestinian Liberation Organizations. He bore the name Mucahit.
The structure of the organization was suitable for the model of the Armenian terrorist organizations.

The Lebanese Central Committee assumed the top management of the organization. In particular, in 1980, this committee took an important shape in Lebanon. And it got the air of Büron.

Some of the assigned affiliated sub-institutions and bodies to the Central Committee were the Political Committee-Financial Committee Propaganda and Publication Committee-Intelligence Committee and Military Committee. The military committee was a body to which also the act teams were affiliated.

2. Goals and Objectives

ASALA published to the world public its political program declared in 1981 with its goals and objectives. Accordingly, the goal of ASALA was to found a democratic, socialist and revolutionary Armenia united under the leadership of the Government. It was clearly understood where this defined Government was. The Soviet Union and socialist states were requested every kind of assistance and the Soviet Armenia was regarded as a base for the long war of the public.
The enemies fell under two groups in the political program. The first of these was called local reactionaries who were the Armenians against ASALA or not for ASALA, being Tashnak Armenian terrorist group, while the second was shown as the Turkish Imperialism supported by the international imperialism.

ASALA accepted and proclaimed that the basic way for rescuing the Armenian territory (?) is to commit revolutionary violent acts. Under the program, ASALA would support those who refused the hegemony of the upper classes and make efforts to set up and strengthen coalitions within the international revolutionary movement. For which violence and terrorism were the bases.

In order for the objectives to be achieved within ASALA, it did not matter if the terrorist acts were committed particularly against Turks or friends of Turks or if official or distinguished people were selected. "Terrorism was an incident and what mattered was the dimension of it. The objectives might be given secondary importance. For this reason, massacres, killings which would cause great repercussions and bombings were prioritized, and not much emphasis was placed on the casualties being a child, woman, Turk or being of any other nationality. However, every tine, Turks and Turkey were prioritized for the terrorist acts. The reasons of the attacks and massacres at the Ankara-Paris Airports, Istanbul and Kapalıçarşı and Orly attack were simply the effect and repercussion that the dimension of such incident would bring.

3. Strategies, approaches and conducts

The basic strategy in ASALA was to gather all the progressive Armenian movements all over the world at one point in Lebanon and to guide them from a center. . In short, the progressive Armenians would unite under one roof and initiate the "ASALA Public Movement". This would consequently enable the progressive Armenian powers to engage in a formal cooperation and to combine their powers.
ASALA tried to implement this part of its strategy by calling for a meeting in Lebanon for all the progressive Armenians in the world. The wording "progressive" meant "socialist-Marxist".

The second stage of the strategy was to spread terrorism through this union of power along with the assistance of the socialist governments, and start the war period. The Armenian terrorism was a part of the liberation struggles in the Middle East, and could unite with any movement against the integrity of Turkey. The cooperation between ASALA and PKK occurred as a result of this strategy.

The approaches and conduct in ASALA reflected a full terrorism. Terrorism at every level of administration and implementation was considered to be symbol of this organization. Leaders killed one another and liquidated those whom they did not like and made them kill. Apart from these, every terrorist team was attempted to be introduced to the world public as a new terrorist organization and every kind of propaganda was made in this regard. The responsibility for the murders were claimed by various, newly-known organizations. Attached is a list at the end of the study regarding the efforts how the death-killing-bombing-rebel teams was shown as an organization under different names. The reader may carefully follow through this list what such a great number of Armenian organization may do. However, none of these could go beyond being a team or group, and remained as the machines of murder affiliated to and guided by ASALA.

4. Political developments

Regarding ASALA, which had been accepted to be founded in 1975, the political developments became effective in two phases. It was strengthened with new powers it had been provided during the Paris Armenian Conference held in 1979. It was reinforced in 1981. It was divided into two in 1983.

The terrorist organization, which had been founded in 1975, performed its first act by assassination of the first secretary of the Turkish Embassy in Beirut, Oktay Cerit by one of its founders Agop Tarakçıyan in 16 February 1976. It was involved in the conflicts among Palestinians until 1979. Contacts were initiated with the Armenian terrorists in France during the Armenian conference held in Paris in 1979. And the organization gained new members; new blood. The most well-known ones among these were Alex Yenikomşiyan and Monte Melkiyan. In 1981,many terrorist acts were committed by these new groups. ASALA started to threaten Switzerland on one hand and France on the other hand. The New Armenian Resistance Organization in France announced that "Azad Hay" in Canada and "Gaitzer" in United Kingdom joined ASALA: The terrorism continued with great efficiency and became common during these years and conflicts started in the central staff In particular, the terrorist acts performed by ASALA, targeting also the innocent people discredited it in various public opinion polls. Following the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, the ASALA executives were compelled to leave Lebanon along with the Palestinians. The organization was divided into two in July 1983.

The Agop Agopyan Group were settled in Greece and the Middle East. It continued terrorism without discriminating between the Turkish and foreign people or woman or child. Orly continued massacres and attacks.

In the Western Europe, it got the name "ASALA Revolutionary Movement". It followed a policy which was based upon a more moderate approach and targeting only Turkish people. The two leaders of this movement were Monte Melkoyan and Ara Toranyan. Toranyan led a Paris-based group called Armenian National Movement. This group qualified the Orly attack as a completely Fascist attack.
Melkonyan, on the other hand, stated that they aimed at establishing the political ground for the Armenian struggle. According to this, the movements had two aspects: (1) activate the Armenians (2)Cooperate with other powers which are taking action against Turkey. Melkoyan who was born in Iran put forward the strategy to forge alliances at the second stage. Agopyan continued his activities, too.

5. Support and relations

ASALA is provided a triple support as a result of its aims and ongoing policies: (1) Support by the Soviets-Eastern Block and Socialist countries (2) Support of countries, with a policy based upon weakening Turkey through internal and external threats and terrorism, as required by their geopolitical expectations: Greece, Syria etc. (3) Support provided by communist parties, indirectly from Hınchak Armenian terrorist organization and its sympathizers, and from the Armenian churches, though they hold counter-views.

ASALA's relations were arranged, in line with the strategy they were implementing, by giving a priority to the non-Armenian terrorist organizations, which were in an attempt to pose a threat, and use terrorism against Turkey. These included at the stage between 1975 and 1980, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, communist parties, activist groups and secret organizations of some states. In April 1980, ASALA expanded its relations with the joint act agreement signed with PKK in Sidon, Lebanon. It is by this way, a unity in view and act was established between ASALA and PKK.

In actuality, both organizations share the same aims, and have similar structure and views. At the stage starting after 1983, ASALA developed its relations in compliance with the strategy of Monte Melkoyan. The basis of the strategy was to focusing on the use of terrorism in Turkey, and establishing relations with every organization which was directly or indirectly capable of implementing this strategy in the form of acts. Some of the leading ones are PKK, similar institutions, TKP and other communist organizations.

6. Publications and means of communication

The most important and official publication of ASALA is "HAYASTAN".

Besides, the magazines "Haykar", "Armenia" and "Kaytzer" published in London are included among the leading publications.

ASALA started its radio broadcasts in Beirut in 1981, and made broadcasts one hour a day with the title "Voice of Lebanese Armenians". Apart from these, the communication means and public communication systems of the countries with which it has relations, are providing ASALA with support in broadcasting.

Türk ve Ermeni Diasporası arasındaki Internet Savaşları

2007-05-04T08:48:00.000-07:00

Ermeni Lobisi çoğu ülke hükümetini soykırım konusunda ikna etmeyi başardığı gibi internet dünyasında da kamuoyunu etkilemeyi iyi beceriyorlar. Ermenilerin oluşturduğu yüzlerce sitede soykırım iddaları tüm dünyayla paylaşılıyor. Türklerin artık sesini ingilizce olarak tüm dünyaya duyurması gerekiyor. http://liearmeniangenocide.blogspot.com adresindeki blog bu amaçla ingilizce olarak kurulmuş. Hep beraber bu bloga destek verelim. Link verelim. Google'da üst sıralara çıkaralım! Mümkün olduğunca çok arkadaşımıza bu blogu mail atarak, msn'den dağıtarak haberdar edelim. Google'da "armenian genocide" ı arayan herkes artık ilke önce bizim fikirlerimizi okusun!

The Armenian Genocide Lie (Ermeni Soykırımı Yalanı)
http://liearmeniangenocide.blogspot.com

Turkish - Armenian Relations

2007-04-27T02:12:00.000-07:00

Ottoman - Armenian Relations

In the first years of the Ottoman Empire, Armenians were scattered as small princedoms and emirates. They were living as subjects of Iran, Byzantine Empire, Georgian and Seldjukian States and the other small emirates located generally in Cukurova, Eastern Anatolia and Caucasus regions.

The first relations of Armenians with Ottomans started in the western region of Anatolia, where Armenians were a small minority. After Bursa was made the capital city of the state by Osman Ghazi (Sultan Osman I) in 1324, most of the Armenians in Kutahya and the Armenian spiritual chieftain were transferred to this city.

Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror, on his own initiative transferred Hovakim, the Armenian spiritual leader in Bursa, to Istanbul after he conquered Istanbul in 1453. In 1461, he had Armenian Patriarchate established as well as the Byzantine Greek Patriarchate, and he ensured Armenians to be controlled by this Patriarch. Following Sultan Selim's (Selim I) conquest of South Caucasia and Eastern Anatolia in 1514-1516, Armenians in this region were also included in the same congregation and were connected to Istanbul Patriarch.

Armenians, who received the attention of the Ottoman Empire, an attention, which they had never received in their history from any other state or any other ruler, became sincerely fond of the Ottoman State and the Turkish nation. Because of this reason, in a short time great numbers of Armenians immigrated to Istanbul from various places, and formed a big community. Thus, they became one of the world's most prosperous communities.

In a period of three hundred and fifty years from Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror to Sultan Mahmut II, religious and social affairs of Christians, as well as the Armenians, were certainly not interfered with. Many schools, printing-houses and libraries were established with the help of Armenian bankers (then called Amira), merchants and civil officials. In addition, many Armenian young men were sent to European universities and schools to be educated in various fields and learn art. Nevertheless, Armenians living under Russian rule were not given these rights at that period.

Armenian Patriarch Nerses stated, in his letter, to the Citizenship Assembly Council in 1876 that "If by any chance the Armenian nation has been preserved as a nation and if it is preserving its beliefs, its church, language, history and cultural values, all these are due to the protection, help and benevolence shown by the Turkish government to the Armenian nation. Fate bounds Armenians to Turks. Because of this, Armenians can not remain indifferent during wars and hardships facing the state. On the contrary, they are obliged to help the state as they have always done. The Armenian who loves his homeland and who will help the state, will receive the best service of his own nation."

As it is seen in the statement above, the Armenian Patriarch says that the Armenians under Turkish rule have preserved their identities and he thanks for the rights offered by the Ottoman State.

The Ottoman State announced the reforms to be made in Gulhane Decree but non-Muslims were not pleased with these new rights given. Non-Muslims were obliged to do military service and they could also charged with official duty or attend civil and military schools. As a result of this, Armenians had the government ratify the Armenian Nation Regulations, which came into force in 1863 and consisted of 99 articles.

Armenians were always treated first class citizens as the other non-Muslims were. They did not do military service, furthermore, they gained important positions in society and became rich especially by obtaining key points in commercial life.

Armenians' fidelity towards the Ottoman State, their adaptation of Turkish customs and even their speaking Turkish well ensured Armenians to be appointed to high and responsible positions of the state. With regard to this fact, in the 16th century, there were statesmen who were promoted to the post of vizier like Mehmet Pasha of Armenian origin. In the 18th century, there were palace jewelers and later Ministers of Mint from the Duzyan family of Divrik and palace doctors from Sasyan family. In the 19th century, there were Ministers of Mint from Bezciyan family and Ministers of Powder-mill from Dadyan family. Also, there were Armenian foreign affairs officials and ministers in the 19th century and Abdulhamid period and so on. In addition, many Armenians worked as counselors to Ottoman statesmen.

The Armenian community always lived in a tolerant and free environment, like all the other minorities and non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire. They were not a community which was exposed to a massacre as claimed but a community who held important positions and practiced important professions in every level of state administration.

Perhaps the most striking statements about Ottoman-Armenian relations were submitted in person by the Armenian community in Turkey. Armenian Patriarch Mesrob II used the expressions below in his speech in the reception in Hilton Hotel on May 22, 1999:

"We are at the brink of the third millenium. We are preparing to celebrate the beginning of a new period in the History of Humanity. I think that this is a great chance for all of us. The chance of designating our future with the dreams of unity of cultures and nations...

Respect to human life and individual rights and freedoms, and a world lawful and far away from all types of violence are common aspirations for all of us.

This milestone in front of us is offering not only a unique opportunity but also a difficult test. The second millenium, which we are preparing to leave behind, is full of tragic events.

However, among the ones we left behind there are also many events which we will always remember with respect and celebrate with pleasure in the coming milleniums.

As we celebrate today...

The foundation of Istanbul Armenian Patriarchate is an unique event in the history of world.

Sultan Mehmet the Conqueror's converting the Armenian episcopalism in Western Anatolia into Istanbul Patriarchate with a firman in 1461, eight years after he conquered Istanbul, is a clear example of his and Ottoman Empire's future vision and tolerance they showed to all religions.

In history, it has never been seen neither before Mehmed nor after him that a ruler who is a disciple of a certain religion establish a spiritual presidency for the disciples of an another religion.

If we consider present tensions in the world and especially the wars in our neighbors in the eve of a new millenium, I suppose we can comprehend better the value of this event, which occurred 538 years ago and the importance of tolerance between religions and cultures.

With pleasure and gratitude, we commemorate Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror who offered a new life for the Armenian community within the borders of the Empire according to their own customs and practice, the statesmen who served the country following Mehmed's steps, and our 83 patriarchs, beginning with the first Istanbul Armenian Patriarch appointed in 1461, Hovagim of Bursa, all of whom served this position faithfully.

We, Turkish Armenians, as being the most crowded Christian community living in Turkey celebrate 75th year of our country with enthusiasm, we sincerely believe in the bright future of Republic of Turkey and we have great expectations for future."

Agop Gırcikyan First ambassador of Ottoman Empire (Paris) counselor of Reshid Pasha. Chargé d'affaires of Ottoman Empire's Embassy for Paris (1834 -)
Krikor Agaton Ottoman Post-Telephone-Telegraph General Manager (1864)
Employee in Foreign Affairs Ministry (1848 - 1850)

Sahak Abro General Secretary of Foreign Affairs Ministry (1850 - )
Sebuh Laz Secretary in Minas-Paris Turkish Embassy (1863)
Krikor Odyan Foreign Affairs Judgement Manager (1870)
Serkis Efendi Confidential Secretary in Foreign Affairs (1870 - 1871)
Ovakim K. Reisyan Court Chairman of Vize Town in Istanbul (1879)/ Preparatory
Artin Dadyan Pasha Foreign Affairs Undersecretary (1880
Diran Aleksan Bey Turkish Ambassador for Belgium (1862) Post Telephone Telegraph Inspector
Yetvart Zohrab Efendi Ambassador for London (1838 - 1839)
Hırant Duz Beg Mesine (Italy) Ambassador (1900 - 1907)
Hovsep Misakyan Efendi Ambassador in La Haye (1900 - 1907)
Sarkis Balyan Turkish Consulate in Montenegro and Italy (1900 - )
Azaryan Manuk Efendi Foreign Affairs Undersecretary
Kapriyel Noradunkyan Minister of Foreign Affairs in Gazi Ahmet Muhtar Pasha's Cabinet (1912)
Agop Kazazyan Pasha Minister of Finance / Minister of Treasure of Property
Mikael Portukal Pasha Ministry of Finance Counselor (1886- General Director of Ziraat Bank/ Minister of Civil List(1891)
Sakız Ohannes Pasha General Secretary of Foreign Affairs Ministry (1871) Minister of Treasure of Property (1897)
Garabet Artin Davut Pasha Ambassador for Vienna (1856 - 1857)/ Governor of Lebanon (1861) Minister of Post Telephone Telegraph and Public Works Ministries (1868)
Krikor Sinapyan Minister of Public Works
Krikor Agaton Post Telephone Telegraph General Manager (1864)
Jorj Serpos Efendi Turkey Telegraphs General Secretary (1868)
Osgan Mardikyan Minister of Post Telephone Telegraph Ministry (1913)
Tomas Terziyan Lecturers in School of Civil Servants
Nişan Gugasyan Lecturers in School of Civil Servants
Tavit Cıracıyan Lecturers in School of Civil Servants
Krikor Zohrab Members of Istanbul in Parliament
Bedros Hallacıyan Members of Istanbul in Parliament

REFERENCES:
1)Türk Devleti Hizmetinde Ermeniler (1453 - 1953), Rahip Komidos Çarkcıyan, Istanbul, 1953
2)British Documents on Ottoman Armenians (4 volumes), 1983, 1989, 1990, Türk Tarih
Kurumu
3) Osmanlı İdaresinde Ermeniler, Nejat Göyünç, 1983
4)Tarih Boyunca Türklerin Ermeni Toplumu ile İlişkileri Sempozyumu.Atatürk
Üniversitesi.1985
5)Türk Tarihinde Ermeniler (Tebliğler ve Panel Konuşmaları). 9 Eylül Üniversitesi.1985
6)Osmanlı Ermenileri. Bilal Şimşir.1986
7)Osmanlı Arşivleri ve Ermeni Sorunu,Türkkaya Ataöv, 1989

Factors Leading To The Creation Of The Issue

2007-04-20T06:28:00.000-07:00

A drastic change was witnessed in Turco-Armenian relations with the decline of the Ottoman Empire towards the end of the 19th century. As a result of activities carried out by instigators infiltrating the Ottoman territories from the West, mostly under a clerical guise, Armenians began to pull themselves away from the Turkish community in the religious, cultural, commercial, political and social fields. Armenians who used Turkish as their language, who conducted their religious sermons in Turkish and even those who had attained high positions within the Empire, such as cabinet ministers, undersecretaries and the like, collaborated with the enemy forces in a bid to attain the downfall of the Ottoman State.

It is during this period that the Armenians began to present themselves as an 'oppressed community' and claimed that their sovereignty rights over Anatolia had been seized by the Turks, this with the aim of securing the backing of the West. States aspiring to attain their goals by exploiting the Armenians, did in fact encourage such propaganda and helped to create public opinion in a drive to have a say in the sanctions to be imposed on Turkey, and to be able to intervene when necessary. Thus, all initiatives with the pretext of supporting the Armenians and safeguarding their rights found serious backing within their own public opinion.
Once they lost their privileged status, with the Reformation Bill granting equal status to muslims and non-muslims alike, the Armenians asked Russia not to withdraw from Eastern Anatolia, which she had invaded during the 1877-1878 Ottoman-Russian war; that autonomy be granted to these territories, or that reformation be conducted in line with their interests. These stipulations found the partial backing of Russia, and henceforward the Armenian issue began to assume an international dimension with the Yesilkoy Agreement, formerly known as the Hagia Stephanos Agreement, signed at the end of the Ottoman-Russian war and the subsequent Berlin Agreement. Thus, foreign powers aspiring o divide the country, started intervening in Turco-Armenian relations.

Once, efforts to organize Ottoman Armenians to take action against the State, by means of committees set up in Anatolia as a result of activities carried out by missionaries proved futile, it was then decided that Russian Armenians set up such committees in regions outside the boundaries of the Ottoman State. Thus, the moderately militant Hinchak, with socialist tendencies, was set up in Geneva in 1887, followed by the extremist and pro-independence Tashnak Committee set up in Tbilisi in 1890, favouring terror, rebellions and struggle to achieve its goals. These committees had been targeted at ' liberating Anatolian territory and the Ottoman Armenians'. Attempts to launch a revolt, instigated by the Istanbul-based Hinchaks and aimed at provoking the Ottoman Armenians by drawing the attention of European nations to the Armenian issue, were followed by acts carried out by Tashnaks who had launched a political struggle. These attempts, masterminded by committees outside the Ottoman lands were supported by missionaries positioned in Anatolia.

About April 24, 1915

2007-04-13T07:29:00.000-07:00

The Ottoman government, against Armenian revolts starting from 1890's and Armenian massacres which resulted with murders of tens of thousands of Turks, informed high members of Armenian congregation and the Armenian deputies that "Government will take necessary measures, if the Armenians continue to stab back the Ottoman State and to kill Turks". The Ottoman government's efforts to stop the events could be clarified with documents.

However, it became a necessity to secure the behind lines as the army was in war more than one fronts, the events did not stop on the contrary they increased. The Armenian attacks on innocent and defenseless Turkish women and children became a vital problem.

Under these circumstances, on April 24, 1915 Armenian Committees were closed by the Ottoman Government and 2345 leaders of these committees were arrested due to their antigovernmental activities. April 24, which is commemorated annually as "Anniversary of Armenian so-called Genocide" by Armenians abroad is this date when 2345 revolutionary committee members were arrested and this day is irrelevant with the Relocation Implementation.

However, Armenian revolutionary committee members always used this a propaganda rule by distorting and exaggerating the facts. As a matter of fact, Ecmiyazin Catholicos Kevork sent a telegraph to the President of USA, stating:

"Dear President, we have been informed that in Turkish Armenia, massacres began and the lives of the Armenians are in danger. At this delicate moment, I address to the noble feelings of Excellency and the great American Nation and in the name of humanity and Christianity, I invite you to interfere Turkey by your Great Republic's diplomatic representatives and protect my people who were left to fanatic violence of the Turks.

Kevork, Archbishop and Catholicos of all Armenians."

Russian Ambassador for Washington's contacts with the US government followed Kevork's telegraphs. Thus, 24 April, the day, which the Armenian committee members were arrested for their illegal activities was begun to be referred as "the day of so-called Armenian genocide by Turks".

REFERENCE:
Gürün, Kamuran, Ermeni Dosyasi, TTK Basimevi, Ankara, 1983, s.210-211

IS THE SEVRES AGREEMENT STILL IN FORCE ?

2007-04-04T02:12:00.000-07:00

The Armenian propagandists claim that the Sevres Agreement, which provided for the establishment of an Armenian State in eastern Anatolia, is still legally in force, and use it to base their claims for the "return" of "Armenian lands". In fact, this agreement was never put into force. It was superseded and replaced by the Treaty of Lausanne, and thus no longer has the force of law. In addition, after the Dashnaks established an Armenian Republic in Erivan on 28 May 1918, it signed the BatumTreatyof4June 1918 with the Ottoman Government. This treaty was described by Foreign Minister Hadisian of the Armenian Republic as involving the full disavowal on the part of the latter of all claims on the territory or people of the Ottoman Empire including its Armenians and the lands claimed by the Armenian nationalists:

"The Armenians of Turkey no longer think of separating from the Ottoman Empire. Their problems no longer are even the concern of relations between the Armenian Republic and the Ottomans, Relations between the Ottoman Empire and the Armenian Republic are excellent, and they must remain that way in the future. All Armenian political parties feel the same way. Continuation of this good neighborly spirit is one of the principal points of the program recently announced by the Armenian Government, of which I am Foreign Minister. "(43).

Even the Dashnak organ Hairenik stated on 28 June 1918:

"Russia's policy of hostility toward Turkey emboldened the Armenians of the Caucasus; that is why the Caucasus Armenians were involved in clashes between two friendly races. Thank goodness that this situation did not last too long. Following the Russian Revolution, the Armenians of the Caucasus understood that their security could be achieved only by haying good relations with Turkey, and they stretched out their hands to Turkey. Turkey also wanted to forget the events of the past, and grasped the outstretched hand in friendship. We agree that the Armenian Question has been resolved and left to history. The mutual feelings of suspicion and enmity created by foreign agents have been eliminated.''(44)

These declarations make it clear that the Armenian Question was closed by the agreements concluded, following World War I; that- the events that had taken place were the responsibility of the Russians and Armenians, not of the Turk, and that if anyone had been mistreated it was the Turks, no-one else.

It is true that the World War I settlement was reopened for a time by the Armenian Republic. Despite the Dashnak declarations, Armenian bands began to raid into eastern Anatolia in the summer of 1918. On 28 May 1919, first anniversary of the foundation of the Armenian Republic by the Dashnaks, it declared that "Armenia has annexed Eastern Anatolia" thus laying claim to the territories of eastern Anatolia which had been returned to the Ottoman Empire following the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. To examine the Armenian claims and recommend a settlement, American President Wilson sent an American investigation committee to Anatolia in the fall of 1919 under the leadership of General James G. Harbord. It toured through Anatolia during September and October, and then reported to Congress that:

"The Turks and Armenians lived in peace side by side for centuries; that the Turks suffered as much as the Armenians at the time of the deportations; that only 20% of the Turkish villagers who went to war would be able to return to their homes: that at the start of World War I and before the Armenians never had anything approaching a majority of the population in the territories called Armenia; they would not have a majority even if all the deported Armenians were returned; and the claims that returning Armenians would be in danger were not justified." (45)

As a result of this report, in April 1920 the American Congress rejected the proposal which had been made to establish an American Mandate over Anatolia for the purpose of enabling the Armenians to establish their own state in the East.

On 10 August 1920 the Armenians joined in signing the long-hoped-for Treaty of Sevres, which provided that the Ottoman government would recognize the establishment of an independent Armenian state, with boundaries to be determined by President Wilson. This treaty was, however, signed only by the Ottoman Government in Istanbul, while most Turks, and most of the country accepted the leadership of the Ankara government, led by Mustapha Kemal, who actively opposed the treaty and its provisions.

In the meantime, following the Armistice of Mondros which concluded the fighting of World War I in 1918, the province ofAdana was occupied by the French. The British occupied Urfa, Marash and Antcp but later left these also to the French.

As French forces occupied these provinces, in south and southeast Anatolia, they were accompanied by Armenians wearing French uniforms, who immediately began to ravage Turkish villages and massacred large numbers of Turks. These atrocities stirred the Turks of the area to resist, once again leading to the spreading of propaganda in Europe that Turks were massacring Armenians. This time, however, since the French themselves were forced to send the Armenians to the rear to end the atrocities, the Armenian claims were evidently false, and no-one really believed them.

After the American Congress rejected a Mandate over Anatolia, the Armenian Republic in the Caucasus, starting in June 1920, attacked Turkey, sending guerilla bands as well as organized army units into eastern Anatolia, and undertaking widespread massacres of the settled population. The Ankara government moved to the defense in September, and within a short time the Armenian forces were routed, eastern Anatolia was regained, and order and security re-established. By the Treaty of Gumru (Alexandropol) signed by the Ankara Government and the Armenian Republic on 3 December 1920, both sides accepted the new boundaries and acknowledged that the provisions of the Treaty of Sevres were null and void. The Armenians also renounced all territorial claims against Turkey.

Shortly after this the Red Army entered Erivan and established the Soviet Armenian Government. However through a revolt in Erivan on 18 February 1921 the Dashnaks once again took over control of Armenia. The new Vratzian Government sent a committee to Ankara on 18 March asking for Turkish assistance against the Bolsheviks, a strange event indeed considering that only two years previously the Dashnaks had organized an Armenian invasion of Turkey. The Dashnak government did not last very long, however, and the Soviets soon regained control of Erivan.

On 16 March 1921 Turkey signed the Moscow Treaty with the Soviet Union, by which the boundaries between Turkey and the Soviet Union were definitively drawn. As arranged in this agreement, on 13 October 1921 Turkey signed the K-ars Agreement with Soviet Armenia, confirming the new boundaries between the two as well as their agreement that the provisions of the Treaty of Sevres were null and void once and for all.

The situation on the southern front was settled by the Treaty of Ankara signed with France on 20 October 1921. France evacuated not only its own troops, but also the Armenian guerillas and volunteers who had cooperated with them, and most of the Armenians who had gathered at Adana in the hope of establishing an Armenian state there. Most of these Armenians were settled in Lebanon. This agreement made possible the subsequent return of Hatay to Turkey, thus fulfilling the provisions of the Turkish national pact which had been drawn up by Mustapha Kemal and the leaders of the Turkish War for Independence.

All these settlements effectively nullified Armenian ambitions for a state in eastern Anatolia. The Treaty of Lausanne, signed on 24 July 1923 in place of the Treaty of Sevres, did not even mention the Armenians, which is why Armenian nationalists even today try to resurrect the Sevres treaty which never really was put into force.

(43) SCHEMSI, Kara, op. cit., p. 31.
(44) SCHEMSI, Kara, op. cit., pp. 31- 32.
(45) URAS, Esat, op. cit., pp. 682 - 683.

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

2007-03-27T12:33:00.000-07:00

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!

2007-03-21T02:45:00.000-07:00

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

2007-03-20T12:22:00.001-07:00

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?

2007-03-20T12:18:00.000-07:00

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

2007-03-16T13:47:00.000-07:00

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

2007-03-15T09:54:00.000-07:00

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 ?

2007-03-13T10:46:00.000-07:00

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

2007-03-12T11:17:00.000-07:00

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.

Falsified Genocide

2007-02-23T12:48:00.000-08:00

"It is... time that Americans ceased to be deceived by (Armenian) propaganda in behalf of policies which are... nauseating..."

John Dewey, Columbia University professor, "The Turkish Tragedy," The New Republic, Nov. 1928

"There is no crime without evidence. A genocide cannot be written about in the absence of factual proof."

Henry R. Huttenbach, history professor who appears to support the Armenian viewpoint exclusively, as do... curiously... nearly all so-called "genocide scholars"; The Genocide Forum, 1996, No. 9

"Believing Armenophile publicity 'exaggerated, misconstructed, and abusive,' [Admiral] Bristol in early 1920 told [Rev.] Barton... that it was contrary to the American sense of fair play to kick a man when he was down and give him a chance to defend himself."

Joseph L. Grabill, "PROTESTANT DIPLOMACY AND THE NEAR EAST: Missionary influence on American policy, 1810-1927," 1971, p. 264

Armenian Allegations and the Facts

2007-02-15T12:36:00.000-08:00

The language of the video is Turkish and the subtitle is French.

Did Talat Pasha Send Secret Telegrames Ordering Genocide?

2007-02-13T07:49:00.000-08:00

Armenian propaganda claiming that so-called genocide was an Ottoman government policy requires proof that such a decision was in fact made. For this purpose the Armenians produced a number of telegrams attributed to Talat Pasha supposedly found by British forces commanded by General Allenby when they seized Aleppo in 1918. It was claimed that they were found in the office of an Ottoman official named Naim Bey, and that they could be destroyed only because the British occupation came with unexpected speed. Samples of these telegrams were published in Paris in 1920 by an Armenian author named Aram Andonian, (38) and they also were presented at the Berlin trial of the Armenian terrorist Tehlirian, who killed Talat Pasha. Nevertheless, the court neither considered these documents as "evidence" nor was involved in any decision claiming the authenticity of them. These documents were, however, entirely fabricated, and the claims deriving from them therefore cannot be sustained. They were in fact published by the Daily Telegraph of London in 1922, (39) which also attributed them to a discovery made by Allenby's army. But when the British Foreign Office enquired about them at the War Office, and with Allenby himself, it was discovered that they had not been discovered by the British army but, rather, had been produced by an Armenian group in Paris. In addition, examination of the photographs provided in the Andonian volume shows clearly that neither in form, script or phraseology did they resemble normal Ottoman administrative documents, and that they were, therefore, rather crude forgeries.

Following the Entente occupation of Istanbul, the British and the French arrested a number of Ottoman political and military figures and some intellectuals on charges of war crimes. In this they were given substantial assistance by the Ottoman Liberal Union Party, which had been placed in power by the Sultan after the war, and which was anxious to do anything it could to definitively destroy the Union and Progress Party and its leaders, who had long been political enemies. Most of the prisoners were sent off to imprisonment in Malta, but the four Union and Progress leaders who had fled from the country just before the occupation were tried and sentenced to death in absentia in Istanbul. Three other Government officials were sentenced to death and executed, but it was discovered later that the evidence on which the convictions had been based was false.

In the meantime, the British looked everywhere to find evidence against those who had been sent to Malta. Despite the complete cooperation of wome enthusraztic supporters such as the Ottoman Liberal Union (38) ANDONIAN, Aram, Documents Qfficiels concernant les Massacres Armmiens, Paris, Armenian National Delegation, 1920. (39) Daily Telegraph, 29 May 1922. government, nothing incriminating could be found among the Ottoman government documents. Similar searches in the British archives were fruitless. Finally, in desperation, the British Foreign Office turned to the American archives in Washington, but in reply, one of their representatives, R. C. Craigie, wrote to Lord Curzon:
"I regret to inform your Lordship that there was nothing therein which could be used as evidence against the Turks who are at present being detained at Malta ...no concrete facts being given which could constitute satisfactory incriminating evidence.... The reports in question do not appear in any case to contain evidence against these Turks which would be useful even for the purpose of corroborating information already in the possession of His Majesty's Government.''(40)

Uncertain as to what should be done with prisoners, who already had been held for two years, without trial and without even any charges being filed or evidence produced, the Foreign Office applied for advice to the Law Officers of the Crown in London, who concluded on 29 July, 1921:

"Up to the present no statements have been taken from witnesses who can depose to the truth of the charges made against the prisoners. It is indeed uncertain whether any witnesses can be found." (41)

At this time the "documents" produced by Andonian were available, but despite their desperate search for evidence, which could be presented in a court of law, the British, never used them because it was evident that they were forgeries. As a result, the prisoners were quietly released in 1921, without charges ever having been filed or evidence produced.

It is useful to reiterate that the main elements in the chain of evidence constructed in proving that Andonian's "documents" were all patent forgeries:

1. To show that his forgeries were in fact "authentic Ottoman documents" Andonian relied on the signature of the Governor of Aleppo, Mustafa Abdiilhalik Bey, which he claimed was appended to several of the "documents" in question. By examining several actual specimens of Mustafa Abdülhalik Bey's signature as preserved on contemporary official documents, it is established that the alleged signatures appended to Andonian's "documents" were forgeries.

2. In one of his forged documents, Andonian dated the note and signature attributed to Mustafa Abdülhalik Bey. Again, by a comparison with authentic correspondence between the Governor (40) 13 July 1921; British Foreign Office Archives 371/6504/8519 (41) British Foreign Office Archives 371/6504/E8745

Aleppo and the Ministry of the Interior in Istanbul, on the date in question, it is proven that the Governor of Aleppo on that date was Bekir Sami Bey, not Mustafa Abdulhalik Bey.

3. Consistently, Andonian's forgeries attest to the fact that he was either totally unaware of, or carelessly neglected to account for, the differences between the Muslim Rumi and Christian calendars. The numerous errors he made as a result of this oversight are, in and of themselves, sufficient to prove the fabricated nature of his "documents". Among other things, the errors Andonian made in this respect served to destroy the system of reference numbers and dates that he concocted for his "documents".

4. By way of a detailed comparison of the entries made in the Ministry of the Interior's Registers of outgoing Ciphers, wherein are recorded the date and reference number of every ciphered communication sent out by the Ministry, with the dates and reference numbers placed by Andonian on his forgeries, it is proven that his so-called "ciphered, telegrams" bear no relationship whatsoever to the actual ciphers sent by the Ministry to Aleppo in the period in question.

5. Again, by comparing the Turkish "originals" of Andonian's " ciphered telegrams" with actual examples of contemporary Ottoman ciphered messages, it is shown that the number groupings he employed bear no relationship to the actual ciphers the Ottomans were using in that period. Thus, in his attempt to make his forgeries appear credible, he created a whole series of unusable, non-existent ciphers. Further, from the dates he affixed to his forgeries in this category, the Ottomans would have had to use the same ciphers over a six-month period which was impossible. By publishing a series of documents instructing officials to change the ciphers they were using, it is shown that, in fact, the Ottomans were changing their cipher codes on average once every two months during the war years.

6. By comparing the manner in which the common Islamic injunction, Besmele, was written on Andonian's two forged letters with numerous examples of the way in which it appears on authentic contemporary Ottoman documents, it is suggested that Andonian's clumsy forgery of this term may well have stemmed from the fact that non-Muslims, even those who knew Ottoman Turkish, did not employ this injunction.

7. A number of examples from Andonian's forgeries show that it is simply inconceivable that any Ottoman official could have used such sentence structures and make such grammatical errors. In the same vein, a host of expressions; allegedly uttered by prominent Ottoman officials are used, which no Ottoman Turk would ever have used. Andonian's intention in these instances was clear: he wanted nothing less than the Turks themselves to be seeming to confess to crimes which he had manufactured for them.

8. The forged documents, with two exceptions, were written on plain paper with none of the usual signs found on the official paper used by the Ottoman bureaucracy in this period. The fact that one of the forged Turkish originals was written on a double-lined paper, which the Ottomans did not even use for private correspondence, constitutes an even more serious error on Andonian's part. Even the two forgeries which appear at first glance to have been written on some kind of official Ottoman stationery are actually written on blank telegraph forms, which anyone wishing to send a telegram could pick up in any Ottoman post office.

9. At a time when the British were frantically searching the world's archives for anything to be used as "evidence" against the group of Ottoman officials whom they were holding for trial as being "responsible for the Armenian incidents", their failure to utilize Andonian's "documents" which were readily available in their English edition, strongly suggests that the British Government was fully aware of the nature of these forgeries.

10. Had documents of the nature of those concocted by Andonian ever actually existed, their confidential nature would have dictated that they be sent by courier for security reasons; rather than through the easily breachable public telegraph system. Likewise, had such documents really ever been written; it is inconceivable that they could have lain around in a file for three years, instead of being destroyed as soon as they had been read.

11. There are also numerous differences between the French and English editions of Andonian's book. Indeed, these variations are of such significance that it is absolutely impossible to ascribe them to printing errors, or errors in translation.

12. Finally, the fact that even some authors with close links to Armenian circles, who serve as spokesmen for Armenian causes, have indicated their own doubt as to the veracity of Andonian's "documents" should not be overlooked. In short, from start to finish the so-called "Talat Pasha Telegrams" are nothing more than crude forgeries, concocted by Andonian and his associates. Moreover the Ottoman archives contain a number of orders; whose authenticity can definitely be substantiated, issued on the same dates, in which Talat Pasha ordered investigations to be made to find and punish those responsible for the attacks which were being made on the deportation caravans. It is hardly likely that he would have been ordering massacres on one hand and investigations and punishments for such crimes on the other.

A letter forged by Aram Andonian with the date, February 18, 1331 (March 2,1916) opens with a "bismillah" (blessing), which would never have been written by a Moslem. The forger, Andonian, made his most fatal mistake with the date, however. He was obviously not well enough versed in the tricks of converting to the Rumi year of the Ottomans, where a difference of thirteen days between the Rumi and Gregorian calendars must be taken into account.

The date he put on the letter was off by a full year. Instead of 1330 (1915), he wrote 1331 (1916). The contents of the letter are supposed to be evidence of the long advance planning of the resettlement operation of 1915.(42) (42) Feigl, Erich. A Myth of Terror, 1991, Edition zeitgeschichten-Freilassing- Salzburg, p. 85

An American aid organization called "the Near East Relief Society" was allowed by the Ottoman Government to stay and fulfill its functions in Anatolia during the deportations. Even following the entry of U.S.A. into war on the side of Entente powers against Ottoman Empire, the same organization was permitted to remain in Anatolia. This was dealt in the reports of the American Ambassador Elkus in Istanbul. In this case, if an order for "massacring Armenians" had been given, would the Ottoman Government have allowed to an American organization to be witness to the "massacres". In other words, it is ridiculous to suppose that the Ottomans said to America: "We are massacring Armenians. Why don't you have a look at it." Such an allegation could never be a logical explanation of historic facts. Finally, and in the end most important, when the war came to an end, the Armenian population still was substantially in place in Western Anatolia, Thrace and Istanbul. Had the Ottoman government ordered massacres, evidently they too would have been killed. And for that matter, had the Ottoman government wanted to eliminate all the Armenians in the Empire, it could have done so far more easily by killing and disposing of them where they lived, rather than undertaking a large-scale deportation of those in the Eastern war zones under the eyes of foreign observers.

The claim, thus, that the Ottoman government ordered and carried out a general massacre of Armenians in the Empire cannot be sustained and is disproved by the facts.

Is Eastern Anatolia The Homeland Of Armenians?

2007-02-13T07:44:00.000-08:00

Even Armenian historians disagree on this question. Let us examine some of their contradictory theories while looking into Anatolian history.

1. The Biblical Noah Theory. According to this idea, the Armenians descended from Hayk, great-great grandson of the Biblical patriarch Noah. Since Noah's Arc is supposed to have come to rest on Mount Ararat, the advocates of this idea conclude that eastern Anatolia must have been the original Armenian homeland, adding that Hayk lived some four hundred years and expanded his dominion as far as Babylon. This claim is based entirely on fables, not on any scientific evidence, and is not worthy of further consideration. The historian Auguste Carriere summarily dismisses it stating that "it depends entirely on information provided by some Armenian historians, most of which was made up."

2. The Urartu Theory. Some Armenians claim that they were the people of Urartu, which existed in eastern Anatolia starting about 3000 B.C. until it was defeated and destroyed by the Medes, with its territory being contested for some time by Lydia and the Medes until it finally fell under the influence of the latter. This claim has no basis in fact. No form of the name Armenian is found in any inscription in Anatolia dating from that period, nor was there any similarity at all between the Armenian language and that of Urartu, the former being a member of the Satem group oflndo European languages, while the latter was similar to the Ural-Altaic languages. Nor were there any similarities between their cultures. The most recent archaeological finds in the area of Erzurum support these conclusions very clearly. There is, therefore, absolutely no evidence at all to support the claim that the people of Urartu were Armenian.

3. The Thracian-Phrygian Theory. The theory most favoured by Armenian historians claims that they descended from a Thracian-Phrygian group, that originated in the Balkan Peninsula and by the pressure oflllyrians migrated to eastern Anatolia in the sixth century B.C. This theory is based on the fact that the name Armenian was mentioned for the first time in the Behistan inscription of the Mede (Persian) Emperor Darius from the year 521 B.C., "I defeated the Armenians." If accepted, of course, this view effectively contradicts and disproves the Noah and Urartu theories.

REFERENCE:

(1) CARRIERE, Auguste, Moise de Khoren et la Genealogie Patriarcale, Paris, 1896

What Is The Outcome Of Research Conducted By Foreigners?

2007-02-13T07:37:00.001-08:00

Immediately after the World War I and following the occupation of Istanbul and several other regions of the country by the Allied armies, the British authorities had sent several hundred Ottoman political and military leaders as well as intellectuals, to Island of Malta under the accusation that they were criminals of war and imprisoned them there. The Sublime Porte had vehemently co-operated with the Allied Powers in all areas just in order to keep the sultanate and its very existence and to get rid of the Union and Progress Party that ruled the Empire for ten years and had a significant influence in the Government.

A thoroughgoing examination was made on the Ottoman archives in order to find clues for indicting the Union and Progress Party as well as the detainees both in Malta and in Istanbul. All these efforts did not produce an iota of evidence that might be used to incriminate the Government of that time and the detainees. Despaired by this failure, the British Government screened its own archives and the documents held by the United States Government in Washington. The result was a blatant impasse.

The United States archives contain an interesting document sent to Lord Curzon on 13 July 1921 by Mr. R.C. Craigie, the British Ambassador in Washington. The tenor of this message is as follows: "I regret to state that there is nothing that may be used as evidence against the Turkish detainees in Malta. There are no events that may constitute adequate proofs. The said reports do not appear to contain even circumstantial evidence that could be useful to reinforce the information held by His Majesty's Government against the Turks.(1)"

On 29 July 1921, the legal advisers in London decided that the intended indictments addressed against the persons on the the British Foreign Ministry's list were semi-political in nature and therefore these individuals should be treated separately from the Turks detained as criminals of war.

They also stated the following: "No statements were hitherto received from the witnesses to the effect that the indictments intended against the detainees are correct. Likewise it does not need to be restated that finding witnesses after so long a time is highly doubtful in a remote country like Armenia which is accessible only with great difficulties. (2)" This statement was also made by the legal advisers in London of His Majesty's Government.

In the end, the detainees in Malta were released in 1922 without trial and even indictment.

Yet the efforts to smear image of Turks with the so-called genocide claims had not come to an end as the British press published certain documents attempting to prove the existence of a massacre claimed to have been perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire while efforts were on-stream to start a lawsuit in Malta. It was stated that these documents were unearthed by the British occupation forces in Syria led by General Allenby. The inquiries subsequently made by the British Foreign Office revealed, however, that these documents were fakes prepared by the Armenian Nationalist Delegation in Paris and distributed to the Allied representatives instead of having been discovered by the British army.

REFERENCE:
1. PRO.FO. 13th July 1971, 371/6504/E8519.
2. Foreign Office, 29th July 1921, 371/6504/E8745

What Was The Demographic Data Before And After Relocation?

2007-02-13T07:33:00.001-08:00

The Armenian committee members always distort and exaggerate the facts about Armenian population before and after the Relocation Implementation. They try to create a basis for their false claims by using war records, official records, church statistics and, reports of foreign missionaries. Some of numbers that is given about the Armenian population in the Ottoman territories are sometimes exceed to the total Armenian population of the Diaspora.

Armenian Population before the Relocation:

There are many different claims about Armenian population in the Ottoman territories; some figures are as follow:

1.British Annual Register 1917 1.056.000 (1)
2.Patriarch Ormanyan 1.579.000 (2)
3.The Armenian historian Kevork Aslan 1.800.000 (3) (In "Armenia and Armenians", Aslan states the Armenian population in Anatolia 920.000, in Clicia (Adana, Sis, Maras) 180.000, in the other Ottoman territories 700.000, total 1.800.000)
4.German Priest Johannes Lepsius 1.600.000 (4)
5.Cuinet 1.045.018 (5)
6.The French Yellow Book 1.475.011 (6)
7.The Armenian historian Basmajian 2.280.000 (7)
8.Patriarch Nerses Varjabedyan 1.150.000 (8)

Official Ottoman census statistics are as follows:
The Ottoman Directory of Statistics was founded in 1892 The first director of the branch was Nuri Bey. Between 1892-1897 a Jewish Ottoman, Fethi Franco was appointed for the duty. From 1897 until 1903, an Armenian director was in charge, called Migirdic Shabanyan. Later, Mr. Robert an American was appointed (1903-1908). Between, 1908-1914 Mehmet Behic was the general director. (9)

As it is seen, in a very chaotic period when the Ottoman government was facing with the Armenian Issue on the international arena, the Ottoman Statistics were under the control of foreigners. At this point, the Ottoman statistics should be considered as the most objective documents about the Armenian population living in Ottoman territories.

* Ottoman census statistics for 1893 1.001.465
* Ottoman census statistics for 1906 1.120.748
* Ottoman census statistics for 1914 1.221.850 (10)

An evaluation of the three sources clarifies that, during the First World War, the Armenian population in the Ottoman territories was approximately 1.250.000.

REFERENCE: Halacoglu, Prof. Dr. Yusuf-; Ermeni Tehcirine Dair Gercekler (1915), TTK Yayini, Ankara 2001.

FOOTNOTES
1) Annual Record of Britannica, 1917
2) Uras, Esat, Tarihte Ermeniler ve Ermeni Meselesi, Istanbul 1987
3) Aslan, Kevork, Ermenistan ve Ermeniler, Istanbul 1914.
4) Uras, Esat, a.g.e.
5) Uras, Esat, a.g.e.
6) 1893-1897 Ermeni Isleri, Paris, 1897 Uras, Esat, a.g.e.
7) Uras, Esat, a.g.e.
8) Uras, Esat, a.g.e.
9) Mazici, Nursen, Belgelerle Uluslar arasi Rekabette Ermeni Sorunu, Istanbul 1987.
10) see. Karpat, Kemal, H. Ottoman Population 1830-1914 Demographic and Social Characteristic, The University Of Wisconsin Press, 1985 London.

What Is"Relocation"? Does It Mean"Genocide"?

2007-02-13T07:30:00.000-08:00

The Arabic originated word "tehcir" means "emigration / immigration", it definitely not means "deportation" or "exile". Hence the law commonly known as the "Tehcir Law" is the same as "Temporary Law On The Military Measures To Be Taken For Those Who Resist The Governmental Acts And Supplementation's." The word used to explain the implementation in line with this law is "tenkil" in the Ottoman language and means "transport- not the equivalent of "deportation", "exile" or "proscription" in Latin originated languages.

The relocation, which was started with the orders of Talaat Pasha, and approved by the Government and the Parliament as a measure against the Armenian riots and massacres, which had arisen in a number of places in the Country - pre - dominantly in Van province, was only implemented only in the regions in which such riots and massacres affected the security of the fronts directly. The first area was Erzurum, Van and Bitlis Vicinities which formed the rear part of the Caucasian - Iran Front; and the second was Mersin - Iskenderun Region which formed the rear part of the Sina Front. In both of these regions, Armenians had collaborated with the enemy and involved in activities to facilitate the enemy's invasion.

Later, the scope of the immigration was widened in order to include the Armenians in the other provinces, who rioted, collaborated with the enemy and screened the activities of Armenian Gangs. Although the Catholic and Protestant Armenians were excluded from immigration at the beginning, later those whose harmful activities were observed, were also relocated.

Since 1915, numerous papers, reports, books, etc. were written and published about the immigration implementation. The Armenians, by using false documents have succeeded to deceit the World for a long time. The rumor about Armenian holocaust (!) which expressed at first as three hundred thousand and later increased to three million has no basis at all. In fact, although English and French authorities have extensively studied the Ottoman archives during their occupation in Istanbul have failed to find even a single document hinting about such holocaust.

Had the Ottoman State intended to make genocide on Armenians; could not they realize such an act at the places where the Armenians live? Why would it be necessary "to immigrate" them for such an intention? Why did they undertake the significant fiscal and material costs of their security, safety, health and food of the immigrating Armenians? During this immigration and re-settlement process which lasted approximately 1,5 year from May 1915 until October 1916, why would the central and local administrations take measures to ensure the lives and properties of Armenians in spite of the difficult war circumstances? In addition, would it be necessary to accept great administrative, military and financial burden -as if opening a new front- to protect and secure these people?

The answers to these questions shall be sufficient to understand the real intention of the Ottoman State. Also there is no logical explanation that why the Ottoman State suddenly changed its policy towards a community which had always been called as "millet-i sadika" (loyal people) due to their being really faithful to the Government. Hence the party whose attitude had changed was not the Ottoman Government, but the Armenians who were deceived by the independence promises of Russia and the Entente States.

In conclusion, it can be said that the Armenian Immigration which was a necessary measure to ensure the State Security and Safety is among one of the most successful transportation and re-settlement processes; and has no intention whatsoever to annihilate Armenians.

Reference: Halacoglu, Prof. Dr. Yusuf, Ermeni Tehcirine Dair Gerekceler (1915), TTK Yayini, Ankara, 2001.

What Does"Genocide" Mean?

2007-02-13T07:28:00.000-08:00

This term refers to a well defined crime, the definition of which has been given in an international convention made after the Second World War: the "Convention of Prevention and Repression of Crime of Genocide", approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its resolution of December 9, 1948 and which went into effect on January 11, 1951, convention Turkey has signed and ratified this agreement.

In the convention the definition of the crime of genocide consists of three elements: for one thing, there has to be a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. Then, this group has to be subjected to certain acts listed in the convention: the "murder of the members of the group, and forced transfer of the children of one group into another group and subjecting the members of a group to conditions which -will eventually bring about their physical destruction". But the third element is the most important: there has to be "an intention of destroying", in part or as a whole the said group. This key-description helps to differentiate between genocide and other forms of homicide, which are the consequences of other motives such as in the case of wars, uprisings etc. Homicide becomes genocide when the latent or apparent intention of physical destruction is directed at members of any national, ethnic, racial or religious groups simply because they happen to be members of that group. The concept of numbers only becomes significant when it can be taken as a sign of such an intention against the group. That is why, as Sartre said in speaking of genocide on the occasion of the Russell Tribunal on the Vietnam War, that one must study the facts objectively in order to prove if this intention exists, even in an implicit manner.

Reference: Prof. SOYSAL, Mumtaz, The Orly Trial, 19 February - 2 March 1985, Statement and Evidence Presented at the Trial,
Ankara University, Faculty of Political Sciences, 1985

RELOCATION(TEHCIR)

2007-02-13T07:25:00.001-08:00

The Definition And Purpose Of Relocation (Tehcir)

The Arabic originated word "tehcir" means "emigration / immigration", it definitely not means "deportation" or "exile". Hence the law commonly known as the "Tehcir Law" is the same as "Temporary Law On The Military Measures To Be Taken For Those Who Resist The Governmental Acts And Supplementation's." The word used to explain the implementation in line with this law is "tenkil" in the Ottoman language and means "transport- not the equivalent of "deportation", "exile" or "proscription" in Latin originated languages.

The immigration, which was started with the orders of Talaat Pasha, and approved by the Government and the Parliament as a measure against the Armenian riots and massacres, which had arisen in a number of places in the Country - pre - dominantly in Van province, was only implemented only in the regions in which such riots and massacres affected the security of the fronts directly. The first area was Erzurum, Van and Bitlis Vicinities which formed the rear part of the Caucasian - Iran Front; and the second was Mersin - Iskenderun Region which formed the rear part of the Sina Front. In both of these regions, Armenians had collaborated with the enemy and involved in activities to facilitate the enemy's invasion.
Later, the scope of the immigration was widened in order to include the Armenians in the other provinces, who rioted, collaborated with the enemy and screened the activities of Armenian Gangs. Although the Catholic and Protestant Armenians were excluded from immigration at the beginning, later those whose harmful activities were observed, were also relocated.

Since 1915, numerous papers, reports, books, etc. were written and published about the immigration implementation. The Armenians, by using false documents have succeeded to deceit the World for a long time. The rumor about Armenian holocaust (!) which expressed at first as three hundred thousand and later increased to three million has no basis at all. In fact, although English and French authorities have extensively studied the Ottoman archives during their occupation in Istanbul have failed to find even a single document hinting about such holocaust.
Had the Ottoman State intended to make genocide on Armenians; could not they realize such an act at the places where the Armenians live? Why would it be necessary "to immigrate" them for such an intention? Why did they undertake the significant fiscal and material costs of their security, safety, health and food of the immigrating Armenians? During this immigration and re-settlement process which lasted approximately 1,5 year from May 1915 until October 1916, why would the central and local administrations take measures to ensure the lives and properties of Armenians in spite of the difficult war circumstances? In addition, would it be necessary to accept great administrative, military and financial burden -as if opening a new front- to protect and secure these people?

The answers to these questions shall be sufficient to understand the real intention of the Ottoman State. Also there is no logical explanation that why the Ottoman State suddenly changed its policy towards a community which had always been called as "millet-i sadika" (loyal people) due to their being really faithful to the Government. Hence the party whose attitude had changed was not the Ottoman Government, but the Armenians who were deceived by the independence promises of Russia and the Entente States.
In conclusion, it can be said that the Armenian Immigration which was a necessary measure to ensure the State Security and Safety is among one of the most successful transportation and re-settlement processes; and has no intention whatsoever to annihilate Armenians.

Reference: Halacoglu, Prof. Dr. Yusuf, Ermeni Tehcirine Dair Gerekceler (1915), TTK Yayini, Ankara, 2001.

Armenia has no tolerance to discuss the facts

2007-02-11T03:44:00.000-08:00

Armenian FM Oskanyan: “There is no need to discuss with the Turkish historians”

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Opposition Party CHP’s Ledar Deniz Baykal called Armenia and Armenians to open their archives and to make negotiations on Armenian issue. Turkish PM said " We have already opened our archives to those who claim there was a genocide. If they are sincere, they should also open theirs. This would allow historians to work on documents on both sides… Teams of historians from both sides should conduct studies in these archives… We do not want future generations to have a difficult life because of hatred and resentment.” However Armenian side says there is no need to discuss the Armenian allegations, because they are already proven. Armenian Foreign Minister Oskanyan said the problem is political and Armenia does not need to discuss the ‘genocide’ argument with the Turkish side. Oskanyan claimed the historians had made their all studies and they do not need make any more study. However the Turkish historians and many American and British researchers do not agree with the pro-Armenian historians. Many historians from the US and Europe including Prof. Dr. Justin McCarthy and Prof. Dr. Stanford Shaw says the 1915 events cannot be considered as ‘genocide’.

Vartan Oskanyan said they have made clear their stance on the issue. Saying that they had already stated the findings of their historians, Oskanyan added:

"Turkey should put forward their case. There is nothing left for historians to do."

Turkish PM Erdogan called on Tuesday for an impartial study by historians of Armenian claims that their people suffered genocide at the hands of Ottoman Turkish troops during and after World War One. Erdogan said that Turkey was ready to face this issue and Turkish Government is sincere. The Armenian response has disappointed Ankara. The AK party Government has made efforts to normalize the relations with Armenia. The AK party politicians say if Armenia take small steps, Turkey will response with great steps.

Armenians claim that at least 1.5 million of their kinfolk were murdered during the last years of the Ottoman Empire. However the number of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire was less than 1.3 million. Turkey has never accepted the Armenian allegations and argued that Armenian armed groups during the First World War killed about 500,000 Turkish and Kurdish people. Turkish officials and historians accept that thousands of Armenians were also killed during the war and uprisings due to the ethnic conflicts between Kurdish and Armenian groups, epidemic diseases and bad weather and war circumstances. More than 200.000 Armenians died due to the bad weather, epidemic diseases and famine under the Tashnak Armenian rule in Armenia in 1919.

More than 100,000 Armenian live in Turkey and more than 50,000 citizens of Armenia work in Istanbul and other Turkish cities.

Turkey has no diplomatic relations with Armenia and its territorial borders have been closed since 1993 in protest against the former Soviet republic's occupation of part of the territory of Azerbaijan. More than 20 percent of Azerbaijan has been under Armenian occupation. About 1 million Azerbaijani became refugees after the Armenian attacks.

Armenia does not recognize Turkey’s national borders. the Armenia’s declaration of Independence and Constitution imply that eastern provinces of Turkey are Armenian. Armenia has no good relations with other neighbors except Iran. Georgia, Turkey and Azerbaijan are close allies of United States and the EU while the Armenia has relied on Russia.

Some EU politicians have even suggested that Turkey should not be allowed to start entry talks to join the bloc on Oct. 3 unless it accepts the Armenian allegations. Turkish political scientist Dr. Sedat Laciner told the JTW that anti-Turkish and anti-Islamic groups have abused Armenian issue in order to prevent Turkey’s EU entry. According to Laciner the role of the Armenian diaspora in Europe cannot be ignored, however the real reason is not the Armenian lobbying groups but the racist and discriminative European parties:

“The EU clearly declared that Turkey is a true European state and there is no serious and structural reason to prevent to Turkey’s membership. At the Summit of 17 December 2004, the EU confirmed that Turkey has fulfilled all criteria the EU asked. Turkish economy, human rights record, even its relations with Greece and Greek Cypriots were not considered as an obstacle for Turkey’s membership. Greece was one of the most enthusiastic supporter for Turkey’s EU membership. Under these circumstances, Turkey-skeptics lost all tools against Turkey. CDU in Germany and rightist parties in France strongly oppose Turkey’s EU bid. Many racist and anti-Muslim groups in Austria, Germany, France and other countries argue that Turkey is a Muslim country and there is no place in Europe to the Muslims. According to the anti-Turkish groups Turkey’s acceptance to the EU will spoil the European civilization. There are many Muslim states in Europe; however none of them is EU member. I think the anti-Turkish groups curtail their sincere thoughts by using the Armenian issue.”

JTW, 11 March 2005

Add This Blog to Your Site!

2007-02-10T01:02:00.000-08:00

Do not let one-sided Armenian propaganda!

http://liearmeniangenocide.blogspot.com

Ermeni Soykırımı İddialarına Karşı Sesimizi İngilizce Olarak Tüm Dünyaya Duyuralım!

http://liearmeniangenocide.blogspot.com