Review of “The Genocide of Truth”
When one is interested in the events of 1915 – and those leading up to them – which are called the “Armenian Genocide” by some, there are a couple of must read books that deny the thesis that what happened constitutes genocide. Most of these books are written by historians.“The Ottoman Peoples and the End of Empire” by Professor Justin is an example of such a must read book for those who study this subject (either professionally or as an extra, out of interest), “The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey” by Prof. Guenter Lewy is another one.
Now, I have found yet another book that all those interested in this subject – even those who support the genocide thesis – should have in their possession: “The Genocide of Truth” by Sükrü Server Aya, published by the Istanbul Commerce University.
That this is a must read and must have book about this rather complicated subject, like the other books mentioned above, does not mean that you can compare this book in most other ways to those other, high quality works. First of all, Aya is not a historian, nor does he pretend to be one. He is a Turk who got interested in this subject and the Armenian allegations, who decided to study it himself as to find out what happened (whether they are right or not) and who, after many years of extensive research, came to the conclusion that there is no such thing as an ‘Armenian Genocide’ and that most Armenian activists purposefully deceive the public by lying about what truly happened almost 100 years ago.
Another major difference is that the other books, especially the one by Prof. McCarthy, almost read like a novel. They are meant to entertain and inform at the same time; they are clearly written by men who are used to write a lot and who are used to explaining historic events to a big, perhaps uninformed but interested public. Their books are written in a way that appeals to a big public. They cover a complicated subject in such a way that the reader can read the book in one day nonetheless and be informed. Of course it has to be pointed out that Anglo-Saxon intellectuals are famous for this style; academics of most other countries have a more boring writing style.
That is, however, not the case with Aya. His style is not boring, but it does not read like a novel either; that is mostly due to the fact that this book is not meant as an introductory or entertaining work. Rather, “The Genocide of Truth” is meant as a big collection of a wide variety of sources, much like an encyclopedia (it has 702 pages for instance). It is meant to explain the issue based on many (also foreign) documents and to show the reader that the no-genocide thesis is based on not just one or two important documents, but on thousands, perhaps even tens of thousands. It is not meant as a novel; the idea of Aya is that the reader can pick up the book whenever he wants to, and can start reading wherever he wants to. You can first read chapter one, and then chapter seven, next you can go back to chapter two and you will not be confused.
This is due to the lay-out of the book. Aya has divided the issue of the ‘genocide’ into several sub-issues. He starts off, for instance, by taking a look at the historical background of the ‘genocide,’ the division of the Ottoman Empire into ‘Millets’ (religious groups) and, then, he takes a look at the situation before, say, 1890; the Armenians and Ottomans had, Aya shows by using a wide variety of documents, a great relationship for hundreds of years. They were rightfully called the “loyal” people by the Ottoman rulers. The Armenians were Christians, yes, but they were loyal, and treated well. They were well off, and had political power, especially after the Ottomans started reforming their country.
Next, Aya takes a look at the missionaries who were active in the Ottoman Empire. This chapter, the fifth, is one of the best in the entire book. The sources Aya relies on are extensive – it’s hard to imagine that he missed any sources and documents that deal with the role (especially) American missionaries played in spreading a feeling of Christian superiority among the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire and of nationalism (as in glorification of the own ‘nation’ – people). Furthermore, what makes this chapter so valuable – in the opinion of someone who has read a lot of books on this subject and who plans to read even more in the coming weeks, months and years – is that he explores a subject, or sub-subject actually, that has been ignored or not researched enough by authors of most other books on the events leading up to 1915. Yes, they often point out that missionaries played a vital role in transforming the ‘loyal millet’ into the ‘rebellious millet,’ but they mostly do so in one or two paragraphs. Aya does not; he takes the time to explain the situation and to explain the role these missionaries played; he actually spends 32 pages to it.
This chapter alone makes “The Genocide of Truth” a must read.
At the very start of the chapter Aya explains to the reader why it is so important to take a look at the missionaries, at how trustworthy they were, at the role they played, etc.: “nearly all information concerning alleged cruelties was reported by the missionaries to the American Board or Relief organizations and the US, British and other embassies.” Much information that was used in the West to stir up an anti-Turkish sentiment, a sentiment that is still alive and well, was provided by these missionaries who were more than Christians trying to convert people; they were also political animals, as Aya explains, who tried to help Christian peoples by turning them from subjects into rulers; even when they were the minority (as they were just about everywhere in the Empire at that time).
The above is not made up by some Turkish people who try to defend their country against allegations of a brutal crime. Aya can back his case up by using many documents. He quotes them at length, so that the reader cannot but come to the conclusion that, indeed, missionaries in the Ottoman Empire may not have been as peaceful and innocent as most Christians and Westerners would like to believe.
Aya quotes, for instance, from Salahi Sonyel’s work “The Great War & The Great Tragedy of Anatolia.” This work summarizes the role of the missionaries perfectly: “Christian minorities played an important role in efforts to dismember the Ottoman Empire. Their aims and ambitions, if fully realized, would involved the dissolution and disappearance of the Empire, to be replaced by puppet Christian states subservient to their patrons, the major Powers.”
There were reasons why missionaries and Christians in general wanted to destroy the Ottoman Empire. “While on a missionary trip to the Choctaw Indians, North American missionary William Goodell came up with the idea of re-conquering the Holay Land for Christianity. At that time, the Holy Land was entirely under Ottoman rule. This new Crusade – for that is exactly how the undertaking was seen – began with a series of reconnaissance tours, planned in an almost military fashion. The American missionaries spared no personal sacrifice the course of these tours,” Aya quotes from Erich Feigl’s “A Myth of Terror.”
One of those merry Westerners, the author explains, was Lord Bryce. If one wants to know what kind of person Bryce was, one merely has to take a look at “Britain & The Armenian Question 1915-23” by Akaby Nassibian. Aya quotes: “Bryce stressed that many Armenians had entered the civil or military service in Russia and some had risen to posts of dignity. He quoted the example of Loris Melikov, the commander of the invading Russian army in Asia in 1877… Bryce believed that the Turkish government ‘deserves to die’.”
Slowly but surely, American missionary schools were transformed into centers for rebellion and anti-Ottoman and anti-Moslem sentiment. The Ottomans knew that the missionaries and Christian churches were used to spread a message of rebellion and war, but there was not much they could do about it; it had agreed with Western powers that Christian missionaries could not be prosecuted for any crimes. As Aya explains, these missionaries used their invulnerability to the fullest.
Take a look, for instance, at this: “First the Catholic missionaries, then the Protestants had begun a campaign of indoctrination among the Gregorians which created many problems. … The Catholics in Turkey were protected by France and Austria; the Protestants mainly by Britain and the US, and the Orthodox by Russia. All these Powers aimed at increasing their influence in the Ottoman Empire, ostensibly in order to protect their protégés, but actually in order to promote their own interests. The Armenians were thus divided by the agents of the major Powers for their ulterior motives. Russia was using the Gregorian Armenians to descend to the warm waters of the Mediterranean and cut off the British route to India; hence it was pressing the Catholicos of Etchmiadzin to stop the progress of the ‘heresy’ of reforms and to clear the empire of it; Britain was using the Protestant and Gregorian Armenians to preserve its lifeline to India by containing Russia restricting French influence; and France was making use of the Catholic.”
Unlike what the reader may think, Aya does not just use sources that agree with him; in fact, Aya quotes from many works written by Westerners who defend the Armenians and the genocide thesis. What he accomplishes by this is that one quickly realizes just how incredibly biased the Western, Christian world was back then, and how biased it probably still is. Turkish Moslem suffering is ignored, Armenian suffering is exaggerated. Armenian Christians have rights, Turkish Moslems do not. Armenian Christian lives matter, Turkish Moslem lives do not.
After these initial ‘leading up to’ chapters, Aya skips to the changes in the Ottoman Empire, and the increasing tensions between Armenians and Turks. Aya shows, again by using a variety of sources, most of which either objective of pro-Armenian, that Armenians started rebelling against the Moslem rulers and killing Moslems on a grand scale behind the frontlines. Furthermore, the author shows also by using Armenian sources, Armenians joined the allies, and especially the Russians. They crossed the border and started fighting for the Russians. When the troops entered Ottoman soil, the Armenian soldiers started wiping out the local Moslem population. Officers of the Great Powers reported about the atrocities committed by Armenians, this is also before the Ottoman government gave the order to relocate the Armenians of Eastern Anatolia, and complained about them. Many of them were disgusted with the conduct of the Armenians who hated the Moslem Turks with such a passion, that not even one of them was safe.
They also, Aya shows, started rebelling on a massive scale behind the lines. They took over entire cities and villages, all in an attempt to occupy the Ottoman soldiers; the more soldiers had to fight against the Armenians at home, the less of them could fight against the Russians in an attempt to stop them from progressing and conquering Anatolia. These Armenian terrorists, because that is what they were, were supported financially, spiritually and materially by the Great Powers who supported the Christian minorities who fought against the majority of Moslems.
“Ammunition was scarce,” Aya quotes from “The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey” by Guenter Lewy, “but Prof. Menassian Effendi, Head of the National School and graduate of Yale’s Sheffield School of Science, cleverly transformed such chemicals as were at hand and manufactured smokeless and black powder, while mechanics turned brass cartridge shells. The Armenian laboratories were soon issuing 2000 cartridges daily, besides hand grenades… Women and children carried ammunition and food and water… After a three-hour fight, the Turks retreated, leaving 35 dead on the field.”
“Art. 6 of the program of the Hunchak Party stated: ‘The time for the general revolution (Armenia) will be when a foreign power attacks Turkey externally. The party shall revolts internally.’ In due time this program of course became known to the Turkish Government and during World War I, the Young Turks used the clause to justify the deportation of the Armenians… In order to achieve these aims ‘by means of the revolution,’ revolutionary bands were ‘to arm the people,’ wage ‘an incessant fight against the [Turkish] Government’ and ‘wreck and loot government institutions.’”
Armenians often talk about how the Turks started fighting against them in the 1890s, resulting in massive Armenian deaths, but they often forget to mention the inconvenient truth that the Armenians themselves started fighting before the Turks did anything; the Turks, as Aya shows, defended themselves. They were not aggressors, they were defenders. Case in point: “For example, the 1894 troubles in Sassun were preceded by Armenian attacks on the Bekhran and Zadian tribes, which resulted in armed battles between the Armenian revolutionaries and Kurdish tribesmen.”
“For example,” Aya goes on to quote, “an eloquent defender of the revolution explained to Cyrus Hamlin, the founder of Robert College in Constantinople, how Hunchak bands would use European sympathy for Armenian suffering to bring about European intervention. They would ‘watch their opportunity to kill Turks and Kurds, set fire to their villages, and then make their escape into the mountains. The enraged Moslems will then rise, and fail upon the defenseless Armenians and slaughter them with such barbarity that Russia will enter in the name of humanity and Christian civilization and take possession.’ When the horrified missionary denounced this scheme as immoral, he was told: ‘It appears so to you, no doubt; but we Armenians have determined to be free. Europe listened to the Bulgarian horrors and made Bulgaria free. She will listen to our cry when it goes up in shrieks and blood of millions of women and children’.”
The author also quotes Western newspapers from the time; the New York Times reported back then, for instance, that “a massacre at Zeitoun” had taken place during which Armenian “insurgents killed all Turkish soldiers in town except two.” Later, in 1909, which is six years before the Ottoman government ordered the deportation or relocation of Armenians, it was reported that “the leader of the Armenian community of Adana, Archbishop Museg, had urged his people to acquire arms.”
What Aya shows in this particular chapter is that, when we talk about the events of 1915, we also have to talk about the events leading up to the relocations. This chapter documents a side of the story that has been ignored in the West for more than 90 years, even though there are documents enough that proof that Armenians committed horrendous atrocities against (innocent) Moslem Turks, all in an attempt to cleanse the lands from them so that they, the Armenians, could have a nation-state of their own.
Next, Aya spends time to the relocations. Nowadays, Armenians claim that nearly 1.5 million of their ancestors died during these relocations and, they say, that happened because the ‘relocations’ were an attempt to wipe out the Armenian population of Anatolia. As Aya shows, there is however a minor problem with the aforementioned; firstly, it is quite unlikely that 1.5 million Armenians died, simply because the population statistics of the Ottomans shows that there were only between 1.5 and 2 million Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire at that time. As other documents show, many of them, more than half, survived the war and settled in the newly founded Armenia or other (especially Western) countries. If 1.3 million Armenians survived and settled in those countries, it is literally impossible to say that 1.5 others died. Either they were modern-day Jesus Christs – who rose up after being killed and then migrated –, that the Ottoman population statistics were way off, or Armenian activists are using false numbers. Aya proves, that the latter is most likely the case, also because the Ottomans taxes Christians more than Moslems; less Christians meant less money.
Those are not the only lies and distortions used by Armenians. Aya has documented many others. One of them: the so-called Andonian documents. This letter was used by Armenians to back up their case that the Ottoman government planned to wipe out their Armenian subjects. Sadly for them, however, the documents are forgeries; obviously made by Armenian nationalists themselves. The British and other allies have always refused to use these documents in court, simply because they were not reliable; not even almost. As Aya shows, however, that did not prevent Armenians and their Western allies from using these documents as ‘proof’ in the public debate. After all, the public does not take a long and careful look at what is presented as ‘evidence.’ If you tell a story and say that the document you hold in your hand is written by Ottoman officials, most people will simply assume it to be true.
It is despicable but, as Aya shows in the 17th chapter “Proven Forgery to Distort History,” done for decades nonetheless. Another such documents is the Blue Book by Arnold Toynbee. Toynbee was a historian, and generally considered to be a very good one at that, so Armenians use this book to back up their claims. The only problem, and this is something they never mention, is that Toynbee did not write this document as a ‘historical academic work,’ but as propaganda designed to convince Westerners that the Great Powers had to fight against the Moslem Turks and ‘liberate’ their Christian fellow citizens. Aya shows that this document too, is unreliable.
And there are many more forgeries and unreliable documents used by Armenians and their allies which Aya debunks by using a great many sources. The famous Hitler quote for instance (“Only thus shall we gain the living space [lebensraum] which we need. Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?”), is shown by Aya to be a forgery, a fake. Hitler never said it; one ‘witness’ said Hitler had said it, but the allied did not include this in their evidence, simply because it was not credible. Hitler allegedly said it during a speech, but all the other transcripts, etc. of the speech do not mention this sentence. Why then has it been included? Because Armenians and their allies have always tried to use everything, everything that ever happened, to their own advantage to further their cause. It is a fake quote, everyone with the least of knowledge about this subject knows it, but Armenian nationalists still lie about it and try to convince Westerners to recognize their ‘genocide’ by using it as ‘evidence.’ As Aya shows, this is part of their propaganda campaign against modern day Turkey.
After that, Aya takes a look at the role epidemics played in the ‘destruction of the Ottoman Armenians,’ and he takes a look at what important Armenian leaders had to say about the First World War, the events of 1915, etc. As Aya shows, these individuals knew better than to blame the Ottomans; they blamed themselves for the misery that had fallen upon their fellow Armenians. They thought they could beat the Turkish Moslems, but they lost. They thought they could kill innocent Moslem lives and get away with it because the West would do whatever necessary to protect them, but the Turks were stronger than most expected and not quite willing to give their homeland to a people who had always been a (small) minority.
“The Genocide of Truth” does a great job convincing the reader that what happened was no genocide. The lies, forgeries and distortions used against Turks have been effective over the years, but “The Genocide of Truth” uses so many documents that the reader cannot come to another conclusion that the Turks have been done a great wrong. The question the reader will ask himself immediately after finishing this book is ‘how come Armenian nationalists are still so successful?’ The author deals with that question in “The Success of Armenian Lobbies and Diaspora” (chapter 24). Again by using a wide variety of documents, Aya shows why it is that Armenians have dominated this debate; they started influencing public opinion decades ago, they were given support from religious leaders in the West, and they were Christians and had, as such, public opinion automatically in favor of them. This is a great injustice, but that is how it is. Armenians have been active for decades, and are willing to spend a lot of money to convince governments to recognize the ‘genocide’ so that their Armenia can finally accomplish what it wanted to accomplish back in 1915: ridding Anatolia of Turkish Moslems (ethnic cleansing), after which the lands can be annexed by Armenia.
As said earlier on in this review, Aya’s work is not a quick and easy read, but it is a must have nonetheless. It is filled with information all those interested in this subject need; not just those who disagree with the genocide thesis. The wide variety of sources used makes up for the weaknesses of the book (such as style). It cannot be called a masterpiece, but it most certainly is one of the best collections of documents and excerpts ever presented on this subject. The author did himself and the larger public a tremendous service by compiling it and getting it published.
In what’s evidence that Aya understands the value of the Internet he has decided to put his book online; it’s not just available in hardcover (such as the one I have), you can also get it for free as an e-book here. Be sure to read the speech he delivered for the launch of his book.
Kemal, in my post, I have said that Ataturk’s interview took place in 1926 and not in 1923 as you claim..
Armenians are not pushing forged documents. They don’t need to do so. There are plenty documents in the archives of European countries, which led to recognition of the Armenian genocide by these countries, among them Germany, Ottoman Empire’s ally in WW1. There are also the Turkish archives and trial proceedings (of those who committed crimes during WW1) published in Turkish newspapers in 1918-1920…I’ll cite these documents too.
“…The Armenian Genocide is abundantly documented by thousands of official records of the United States and nations around the world including Turkey’s wartime allies Germany, Austria and Hungary, by Ottoman court-martial records, by eyewitness accounts of missionaries and diplomats, by the testimony of survivors, and by decades of historical scholarship..”.
Bob Parks, the Armenian Genocide is a fact the Armenian people practiced in the Ottoman Empire. It was the first genocide of the 20th century. They were massacred by the state they supposed to be its subjects and under its protect. There is a simple definition of the word “Genocide” you must know under the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This is why there is no Armenian people now in the Armenian vilayets where they lived continuously for 5000 years till 1915, but there are Turks, Kurds and other peoples.
What you have said about ARF and Katchaznouni is baseless and a product of your fictitious thinking. ARF represents a portion of the Armenian people. All the subjects of the Ottoman Empire fought for their freedom and won it (like the Greeks, Bulgarians, Macedonians, Romanians, Serbs, Arabs, etc.) except for Armenians and Kurds.
Elif, I am talking about a genocide campaign led by the state against a portion of its subjects they supposed to be under its protection. It was a well-organized campaign carried out under the condition of the war to get rid of the Armenian Cause by killing the Armenian people under the pretext of rebellion in all regions even far from the war zone!!
“One final thing, I can only say that I will keep reading the scholars from both sides and I suggest you do the same but over the last 2 months, it is so obvious to me that the events can never be labelled as genocide”
Elif, then, keep up reading, you haven’t reached yet your final point. Check all the information I’ll give and you may get. You may be another Elif Shafak!!
In Istanbul, a Crack In the Wall of Denial
We’re Trying to Debate the Armenian Issue
By Elif Shafak
Sunday, September 25, 2005; Page B03
ISTANBUL
Iam the daughter of a Turkish diplomat — a rather unusual character in the male-dominated foreign service in that she was a single mother. Her first appointment was to Spain, and we moved to Madrid in the early 1980s. In those days, the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia, known as ASALA, was staging attacks on Turkish citizens — and diplomats in particular — in Rome, London, Zurich, Brussels, Milan and Madrid; our cultural attaché in Paris was assassinated in 1979 while walking on the Champs-Elysees. So throughout my childhood, the word “Armenian” meant only one thing to me: a terrorist who wanted to kill my mother.
Faced with hatred, I hated back. But that was as far as my feelings went. It took me years to ask the simple question: Why did the Armenians hate us?
My ignorance was not unusual. For me in those days, and for most Turkish citizens even today, my country’s history began in 1923, with the founding of the modern Turkish state. The roots of the Armenians’ rage — in the massacres, atrocities and deportations that decimated Turkey’s Armenian population in the last years of Ottoman rule, particularly 1915 — were simply not part of our common historical memory.
But for me today, and for a growing number of my fellow Turks, that has changed. That is why I am in Istanbul this weekend. I came to Bosphorus University to attend the first-ever public conference in this country on what happened to the Ottoman Armenians in and after 1915. As I write, we are fighting last-minute legal maneuvers by hard-line opponents of open discussion to shut the conference down. I don’t know how it will turn out — but the fact that we are here, openly making the attempt, with at least verbal support from the prime minister and many mainstream journalists, highlights how far some in my country have come.
Until my early twenties, like many Turks living abroad, I was less interested in history than in what we described as “improving Turkey’s image in the eyes of Westerners.” As I began reading extensively on political and social history, I was drawn to the stories of minorities, of the marginalized and the silenced: women who resisted traditional gender roles, unorthodox Sufis persecuted for their beliefs, homosexuals in the Ottoman Empire. Gradually, I started reading about the Ottoman Armenians — not because I was particularly interested in the literature but because I was young and rebellious, and the official ideology of Turkey told me not to.
Yet it was not until I came to the United States in 2002 and started getting involved in an Armenian-Turkish intellectuals’ network that I seriously felt the need to face the charges that, beginning in 1915, Turks killed as many as 1.5 million Armenians and drove hundreds of thousands more from their homes. I focused on the literature of genocide, particularly the testimony of survivors; I watched filmed interviews at the Zoryan Institute’s Armenian archives in Toronto; I talked to Armenian grandmothers, participated in workshops for reconciliation and collected stories from Armenian friends who were generous enough to entrust me with their family memories and secrets. With each step, I realized not only that atrocities had been committed in that terrible time but that their effect had been made far worse by the systematic denial that followed. I came to recognize a people’s grief and to believe in the need to mourn our past together.
I also got to know other Turks who were making a similar intellectual journey. Obviously there is still a powerful segment of Turkish society that completely rejects the charge that Armenians were purposely exterminated. Some even go so far as to claim that it was Armenians who killed Turks, and so there is nothing to apologize for. These nationalist hardliners include many of our government officials, bureaucrats, diplomats and newspaper columnists.
They dominate Turkey’s public image — but theirs is only one position held by Turkish citizens, and it is not even the most common one. The prevailing attitude of ordinary people toward the “Armenian question” is not one of conscious denial; rather it is collective ignorance. These Turks feel little need to question the past as long as it does not affect their daily lives.
There is a third attitude, prevalent among Turkish youth: Whatever happened, it was a long time ago, and we should concentrate on the future rather than the past. “Why am I being held responsible for a crime my grandfather committed — that is, if he ever did it?” they ask. They want to become friends with Armenians and push for open trade and better relations with neighboring Armenia . . . . as long as everybody forgets this inconvenient claim of genocide.
Finally, there is a fourth attitude: The past is not a bygone era that we can discard but a legacy that needs to be recognized, explored and openly discussed before Turkey can move forward. It is plain to me that, though it often goes unnoticed in Western media, there is a thriving movement in Turkish civil society toward this kind of reconciliation. The 50 historians, journalists, political scientists and activists who have gathered here in the last few days for the planned conference on Ottoman Armenians share a common belief in the need to face the atrocities of the past, no matter how distressing or dangerous, in order to create a better future for Turkey.
But it hasn’t been easy, and the battle is far from over.
Over the past four years, Turks have made several attempts to address the “Armenian question.” The conference planned for this weekend differed from earlier meetings in key respects: It was to be held in Istanbul itself, rather than abroad; it would be organized by three established Turkish universities rather than by progressive Armenian and Turkish expatriates; it would be conducted completely in Turkish.
Originally scheduled for May 23, it was postponed after Cemil Cicek, Turkey’s minister of justice, made an angry speech before parliament, accusing organizers of “stabbing their nation in the back.” But over the ensuing four months, the ruling Justice and Development Party made it clear that Cicek’s remarks reflected his views, and his alone. The minister of foreign affairs, Abdullah Gul, announced that he had no problem with the expression of critical opinion and even said he would be willing to participate in the conference. (As it happens, he has been in New York in recent days, at the United Nations.)
Meanwhile, the Armenian question has been prominently featured in Turkish media. Hurriyet, the nation’s most popular newspaper, ran a series of pro and con interviews on this formerly taboo subject, called “The Armenian Dossier.” The upcoming trial of acclaimed author Orhan Pamuk, charged with “denigrating” Turkish identity for talking about the killing of Kurds and Armenians, has been fervently debated. Various columnists have directly apologized to the Armenians for the sufferings caused to their people by the Turks. And stories have been reported of orphaned Armenian girls who saved their lives by changing their names, converting to Islam and marrying Turks — and whose grandchildren are unaware today of their own mixed heritage.
All this activity has triggered a nationalist backlash. That should be expected — but organizers of the Conference on Ottoman Armenians were nevertheless surprised last week by a crafty, last-minute maneuver: a court order to postpone the conference pending the investigation of hardliners’ charges that it was unfairly biased against Turkey. The cynicism of this order was clear when we learned that the three-judge panel actually made its decision on Monday; it was not made public until late Thursday, only hours before the conference was to begin.
Organizers said they would try to regroup by moving the site from Bosphorus University, a public institution, to one of the two private universities that are co-sponsors. We were encouraged by the immediate public reaction: Not only did some normally mainstream media voices denounce the court order, but Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in televised interviews, repeatedly criticized it as “unacceptable.” “You may not like the expression of an opinion,” he said, “but you can’t stop it like this.” Foreign Minister Gul, in New York, lamented what effect this would have on Turkey’s quest to join the European Union: “There’s no one better at hurting themselves than us,” he said.
Whatever happens with the conference, I believe one thing remains true: Through the collective efforts of academics, journalists, writers and media correspondents, 1915 is being opened to discussion in my homeland as never before. The process is not an easy one and will disturb many vested interests. I know how hard it is — most children from diplomatic families, confronting negative images of Turkey abroad, develop a sort of defensive nationalism, and it’s especially true among those of us who lived through the years of Armenian terrorism. But I also know that the journey from denial to recognition is one that can be made.
Author’s e-mail: elifshafak@yahoo.com
Elif Shafak is a novelist and a professor of Near Eastern Studies at the University of Arizona. She commutes between Tucson and Istanbul.
Jonathan, all scholars and writers (Armenians or non-Armenians) who tell historical facts are, according to you, inefficient, even New York Times Best-Selling author Peter Balakian!! Also, the IAGS, the major body of scholars who study genocide in North America and Europe is, according to you, “an organization funded by donors (probably (!!!) Armenian-Americans). This is not true, as the Turkish state spends millions of dollars and uses its resources, diplomatic, economic relations to distort the facts, bribe some scholars, establish chairs for so-called “Turkish studies” and press other countries not to recognize the Armenian Genocide. One must not be so clever to conclude that the resources of the Armenian-American community is too small comparing to the resources and the capabilities of the member state of NATO.
Elif, Polish jurist Raphael Lemkin, when he coined the term genocide in 1944, cited the Turkish extermination of the Armenians and the Nazi extermination of the Jews as defining examples of what he meant by genocide (please don’t cite such web sites sponsored by the Turkish state to spread propaganda and fabrications WHICH HAVEN’T ANY VALUE).
Perhaps the first use of the word “holocaust” to describe a human rights disaster was on the front page of the “New York Times” on Sept. 10, 1895, in the headline “Another Armenian Holocaust”. The article describes the mass murder of more than five thousand Armenians by a force of one thousand Turkish troops in the Erzinjan district.
Another quotation from Winston Churchill’s book, “The World Crisis, vol. 5: Aftermath,” published i n New York in 1929, page 157, which stated:
“As for Turkish atrocities: marching till they dropped dead the greater part of the garrison at Kut; massacring uncounted thousands of helpless Armenians, men, women, and children together, whole districts blotted out in one administrative holocaust — these were beyond human redress.”
Also, Arnold Toynbee, in his book, “The Murder of a Nation,” published in 1915, uses the words “Armenian Holocaust” to describe the massacres.
Aram, I won’t answer your whole comment here because really we are not going anywhere with this (although I read it to the very end believe me), you still look at the issues one sided, it is obvious because you even claim that AGD is sponsored by Turkish goverment. AGD may not have any value for you (COS IT IS NOT SERVING YOUR CASUE) but it has for a lot of people and not only Turks by the way, foreigners who wants to know what really happened back then. To you, some of the admins being not even Turkish does not mean anything cos you are going to say that they are bought-out as well. You are right indeed, for you meaningful things are citations that support your cause, not the reality, not the evidence, not the history, not the logic and obviously not the common sense.
I just want to say that you ask me to keep on reading which I do and I also check your citations without trying to undermine them or without any prejudice, but unfortunately I can not tell the same for you. To you, your citations are free from bias to the very end, but the ones deying your accusations and with evidence by the way are all products of Turkish goverments spending millions of dollars on this issue (!).
I will keep on reading Aram, will you?
Aram,
The article published in 1926 claims the statement attributed to Ataturk was made in 1923. Ok, read that sentence again, very carefully.
The article claims, that in 1923 Ataturk made statements about a genocide and an assasination attempt that did not occur until 3 years later.
Get it? The statements in the article attributed to Ataturk are a forgery, fake, a lie.
Did you try reading the excerpts from Ataturk’s Great Speech quoted above? Let me guess, ummm, since you don’t respond to them, NO.
Or, do you only read things that promote your position without regard to their credibility? Which only goes to show, you’re interest is not in historical truth.
Here, Aram, let me help you.
BELOW ARE STATEMENTS MADE BY ATATURK DURING HIS GREAT SPEECH WHICH ARE UNDOUBTEDLY AND INDISPUTABLY DOCUMENTED AS HIS WORDS.
"[T]he possible cession of the Eastern Provinces to Armenia was the most important reason for [the Union for Defence of the National Rights of the Eastern Provinces] having been formed. They anticipated that this possibility might become a reality if those who tried to prove that the Armenians were in the majority in these provinces, claiming the oldest historical rights, were to succeed in misleading world public opinion by alleged scientific and historic documents and by perpetuating the slander that the Muslim population was composed of savages whose chief occupation was to massacre the Armenians. Consequently, the Society aimed at the defence of national and historic rights by corresponding methods and arguments."
Nutuk (Great Speech- English Language version), p. 4
"The assertions regarding the Armenian massacres were undoubtedly NOT in accordance with fact. For the Armenians in the south, armed by foreign troops and encouraged by the protection they enjoyed attacked the Muslims of their district.
Animated with the spirit of revenge, they pursued a relentless policy of murder and extermination everywhere. This was responsible for the tragic incident at Maras. Making common cause with the foreign troops, the Armenians had completely destroyed an old Muslim town like Maras by their artillery and machine-gun fire.
They killed thousands of innocent and defenceless women and children. The Armenians were the instigators of the atrocities, which were unique in history. The Muslims had merely offered resistance and had defended themselves with the object of saving their lives and their honour. The telegram which the Americans, who had remained in the town with the Muslims during the five days that the massacres continued, had sent to their representative in Istanbul, clearly indicates in an indisputable manner who were the originators of this tragedy.Threatened by the bayonets of the Armenians, who were armed to the teeth, the Muslims in the Vilayet of Adana were at that time in danger of being annihilated."
Nutuk (Great Speech - English Language version), pp. 319-20.
Aram,
You should be careeful about making claims that Armenians don’t have much money to fund Armenian genocide claims.
Donations in excess of $250 made by the Armenia diaspora to politicians running forthe Senate, Congress and President are publicly available through the Federal Election Commission’s website. Only a little research shows that millions of dollars are donated to U.S. politicians each year by the diaspora.
ALSO, because ANCA and AAA are non-profits, their tax returns are also publicly available on the internet. It may be quite the eye-opener for you that one year, there was a single $10 Million donation made to one of those organizations.
Don’t bother Kemal. Thanks to some friend, I found about the funding of IAGS, guess what, the partner of IAGS in forming IAGS Journal is a division of Zoryan Institute called IIGHRS - International Institute of Genocide and Human Rights Studies. Apparently putting an international in the name frees an organization from all bias (indeed this is not even hidden in their website but unfortunately it is a little bit difficult to find the part related to this in the website). Even former president of IAGS is from Zoryan Institute and I thought this was an independant organization. Not every international organization is independant, I learn something everyday.
Check out the link to verify: http://genocidescholars.org/newsletter3may2005.html
Aram, claiming AGD being funded by Turkish goverment without having to give any evidence /a site which allows articles to be posted from both sides as long as they meet professional criteria / is giving examples from IAGS which is funded by Armenians in the first place and I am pretty sure he will say that partnerships with Zoryan Institute do not mean Armenian funding at all.
I am saying don’t bother because as I posted before, he is not after reality, he is just after anything that can support his cause to claim Western Armenia!!!. I thought that I could reasonably debate with him at the beginning but unfortunately I saw that I was wrong.
He is just keeping attacking the citations we give without any sound basis and then claiming his citations to be free from all bias, so as I said before, I do not think that he will ever read any scholars from the other side or any source contradicting his belief as a matter of fact, so I say it again, don’t bother because from now on I won’t.
Elif, you are free whether to comment or not on my posts, but you wanted the opinion of the majority of scholars about the Armenian Genocide.. Believe me I do not look at the issues one-sided, because the Ottoman Armenians experienced the genocide in 1915 and there are plenty of documents about that as I mentioned before. I also mentioned that the denial is a policy adopted by the Turkish state (as Turkish propaganda aimed at Turks). There are an increasing number of Turkish intellectuals who began to admit the Armenian genocide specially abroad. I can keep up posting details about this subject. An American journalist years before even interviewed old Turkish people in the Eastern provinces of Turkey and recorded what they knew or heard about the genocide and about the “children left beyond the sword” in these provinces (Armenian children not killed and adopted by Turkish families). The some descendants of those now declare their Armenian identity. The whole world knows about the Genocide. In Turkey all those who refer to the Armenian genocide are labelled as “Traitors” and tried under the article 301 of the Penal Code!!
In the US Congress (the external relations committee) when last year there was a vote on Res. 106 which was passed by 28 against 21 (I saw a live broadcast of it), no one even those who rejected the resolution claimed there was no genocide (as the Turkish state does), but they justified their refusal by the US national interests and not to bother the US ally in the region (Are those also funded by the Armenians?)!! You may also ask people who saw this voting to be sure I am telling the truth. Turkey’s government is in fear now if Obama is elected as US president (which is now very probable) he will recognise the Armenian genocide, though the US president Ronald Reagan acknowledged it in 1981 and the US Congress made it twice (in 1975 and 1984). I can offer you the texts of that if you want.
The Turkish government spends millions on propaganda in this issue is a fact. There was a posting about this and you and other people thinking like you doubted it “COS IT IS NOT SERVING YOUR CASUE”! I can offer other articles about this matter.
Also, I suggest you read this column:
Turks Scare Themselves by Claiming Armenians Spend Millions on Lobbying
http://armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Turks_Scare_Themselves_by_Claiming_Armenians_Spend_Millions_on_Lobbying
To be continued..
« The points several of you make about a minority of Armenian revolutionaries do not mean that a counter-massacre of any equal extent was committed by Armenians against Turks »
What a bad joke.
"After three months touring through the are occupied and devasted by the Russian army and the Christian Revenge army during the Spring and the Summer 1916, I have no hesitation in saying that the Turks would be able to make out as good a case againt their enemies that prestented against the Turks."
Major E. W. C. Noel, report of March 12, 1919, quoted in Guenter Lewy, The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey, Salt Lake City, University of Utah Press, 2005, p. 118.
"In the entire region from Bitlis through Van to Bayezit, we were informed that the damage and destruction had been done by the Armenians, who, after the Russians retired, remained in occupation of the country and who, when the Turkish army advanced, destroyed everything belonging to the Musulmans. Moreover, the Armenians are accused of having committed murder, rape, arson and horrible atrocities of every description upon the Musulman population. At first, we were most incredulous of these stories, but we finally came to believe them, since the testimony was absolutely unanimous and was corroborated by material evidence. For instance, the only quarters left at all intact in the cities of Bitlis and Van are Armenian quarters … while the Musulman quarters were completely destroyed."
Captain Emory N. Niles and Arthur E. Sutherland, report to US administration, August, 16 1919, US National Archives, 184.021/175
http://louisville.edu/a-s/history/turks/Niles_and_Sutherland.pdf
The first massacres in Eastern Anatolia during the WWI were perpetrated by Armenian revolutionaries, in November 1914.
The French legislation criminalizing genocide denial has not been passed as law as the Senate has not voted on it. It seems unlikely that it will be.
Indeed. The Senate is notorious hostile to the "genocide fanfare", and even the anti-Turkish president Sarkozy is strongly opposite to this kind of law. The law of "recognition" was voted by the Senate after hate campaign and almost physical threats against Senators. Today, this sorts of campaign are not more possible.
Also, Arnold Toynbee, in his book, “The Murder of a Nation,” published in 1915, uses the words “Armenian Holocaust” to describe the massacres.
Arnold J. Toynbee was, in 1915-1918, a very young historian, not specialist of the contemporary Anatolia or Near East, and employed by the Bryce’s gang. In all his other publications, he denied the WWI propaganda.
Dear Lucrece
Do you agree that the United States archives are a good source of finding out what happened in the Ottoman Empire during and after WW1? You seem to be using them as a reference for acts committed by Armenians. If so, you are going to be in a great shock, although there are a few isolated references that Armenians had committed atrocities, the overwhelming majority of U.S archival material at both a state and non-governmental level prove that there was a systematic campaign conducted by the Ottoman empire to exterminate the Armenians. Do you agree that the majority of U.S archival material on the Ottoman Empire during WW1 contains details of the Armenian genocide perpetrated by the Ottoman government?
Secondly, you quote from the Nile and Sutherland report, you forgot to include the following descriptive sentence: "the details of which were exactly the same as those perpetrated by the Turks upon the Armenians". This implies that the Armenians were massacred earlier and that atrocities committed upon the Turks were revenge attacks.
There is no denial on the part of the Armenians that individual Armenians committed atrocities against Turks as revenge acts. You must remember that there was no Armenian state at the time. There were Armenian subjects of the Ottoman Empire and Armenian subjects of the Russian Empire. These acts are not considered genocide. Orders were not given by the rulers of the "Armenian empire ". Certainly they need to be condemned and as an Armenian I am ashamed of such acts.
The Ottoman government ordered the deportation of the Armenians throughout the Ottoman Empire. Armenians from over 2000 towns and villages were deported within a short period of time from one another. It is this systematic nature of the Armenian deportations which consititutes genocide, because most were killed or died as a result of the deportations. Laws were passed by the Ottoman government to confiscate the abandoned properties.
Armenian revolutionaries had existed since the 1880’s. They were smaller in number and less powerful than the Turkish/Kurdish irregulars who were committing atrocities against the Armenians in those regions for decades before. The Armenians were not a monolithic group, not all Armenians were revolutionaries. The revolutionaries were located in isolated regions of South East Anatolia. Before 1908, Armenians were not allowed to bear arms, while their Moslem overlords were allowed. This resulted in many social justice issues which are recorded but not known by most Turks. It is natural to want to exxagerate the strength of the Armenian revolutionaries. There was no evidence of any Armenian revolutionaries in the western provinces of Anatolia such as Bursa, Eskshehir, Afionkarahissar, Konya etc. However, practically all the Armenians in these regions were deported. There is no excuse to deport, women, children and elderly, they cannot be a threat to a state.
There are growing number of Turkish intellectuals who have come to terms with their history despite the intimidation of article 301. The numbers will continue to grow as more Turkish intellectuals sincerely seek the truth. I understand it is difficult, but I am confident that in time most Turks will come to realise that a "deep state" has existed in Turkey which has manipulated public opinion by presenting a distorted version of history.
The Armenians were considered the loyal Millet, and in fact for many, Turkish was their first language. They fought for the Empire during the Balkan wars and at the battle of Sarikamish. Armenian doctors served in the Red Crescent attending wounded Ottomans. The reason why the Turkish government wanted to exterminate the Armenians is rooted in ultra-nationalism, Pan-Turkism and demographic engineering. The reform agreement for the Armenian provinces signed by Turkey and Russia in early 1914 provided the catalyst for the decision to solve the Armenian question. The reform agreement was the first step for the Armenians in receiving greater power in government and ultimately having more autonomy.
The Armenians had been under Ottoman rule for about 6 centuries. Turks have never been under the rule of an Armenian empire. Maybe you should read more about how the Armenians were treated during this time. Put yourself in their shoes. Imagine after the greek occupation of 1919, they remained for 600 years. Wouldn’t you want the occupiers to leave? Well, the Armenians were in eastern Anatolia for at least 2000 years before the arrival of the Turks. Our culture is purely Caucasian and Anatolian unlike the Turkish which is predominately central Asian and infused with Anatolian culture.
Do you agree that the United States archives are a good source of finding out what happened in the Ottoman Empire during and after WW1? You seem to be using them as a reference for acts committed by Armenians. If so, you are going to be in a great shock, although there are a few isolated references that Armenians had committed atrocities, the overwhelming majority of U.S archival material at both a state and non-governmental level prove that there was a systematic campaign conducted by the Ottoman empire to exterminate the Armenians. Do you agree that the majority of U.S archival material on the Ottoman Empire during WW1 contains details of the Armenian genocide perpetrated by the Ottoman government?
« An examination of the voluminous file listing the “accusations” against individual Malta detainees reveals the weakness of the legal case against them. For example, a note in the chart of Abbas Halim Pasha, minister of public works in 1915, stated: “No specific accusation has been made. He was a member of the cabinet which ordered the deportation entailing, the massacre of hundred thousands of Christians.” Several other ministers and CUP officials similarly found themselves as prisoners of the British simply on account of the office they had held. Ziya Gökalp had been a member of the CUP central committee; the military court in Constantinople that had tried him had produced non evidence whatever implicating him in any wrongdoing, yet he wound up in Malta accused of “atrocities”. The source of this accusation was not identified. Ahmed Muammer Bey, the vali of Sivas, was also accused of atrocities, in his case on the basis of incriminating telegrams that his dossier referred as “alleged to be translations of Turkish official telegrams”. Several dossiers include documents from the Andonian-Naim book.
Pratically all the information in the dossiers had come from Armenian sources, who, under the trauma of the deportations and massacres, were inclined to accept almost any allegation of Turkish guilty. Even the processing of the information in the Armenian-Greek section of the office of the high commissioner was in Armenian hands. Until he was no longer needed in November 1920, the head clerk and keeper of records in the section was an Armenian named A. Fenerdjian. As mentioned earlier, another archivist was Haigazn Kazarian. For good reasons none of the information laboriously collected was considered legal evidence admissible before a British court of law.
In their search for evidence the British turned to the United States. […] On July 13 [1921], after an embassy staff member had personally examinated “a selection of reports from United States Consuls on the subject of the atrocities committed during the recent war” and had checked the files for any mention of forty-five Malta detainees accused of outrages against Armenians and other Christians, the ambassador sent a follow-up report, which again was negative:
“I regret to inform Your Lordship that there was nothing therein which could be used as evidence against the Turks who are being detained for trial at Malta. The reports seen, while furnishing full accounts of the atrocities committed, made mention, however, of only two names of the Turkish officials in question ― those of Sabit Bey and Suleiman Faik Pasha ― and these cases were confirmed to personal opinions of theses officials on the part of writer, no concrete facts being given which could constitute satisfactory incriminating evidence.” »
Guenter Lewy, The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey. A Disputed Genocide, University of Utah Press, 2005, pp. 125/126.
Secondly, you quote from the Nile and Sutherland report, you forgot to include the following descriptive sentence: "the details of which were exactly the same as those perpetrated by the Turks upon the Armenians". This implies that the Armenians were massacred earlier and that atrocities committed upon the Turks were revenge attacks.
The massacres of Armenians by some Turks and, most frequently, by Kurds and Circassians, constitute an historial fact, not contested, even by Yusuf Halaçoğlu. The repression of this atrocities by the Ottoman authorities, under the responsability of Talat Pacha, constitute another historical fact.
The massacres documented by the Niles-Sutherland report constitute certainly acts of revenge, but for a part only. At least the massacres between December 1917 and February 1918 cannot in anyway be considered as act of revenge, but only as the worst kind of ethnic cleansing.
Moreover, there were other Armenian atrocities, before the deportations (especially in the vilayet of Van), documented in Ottoman archives and, for a part, in account of missionaries. The book of Kara Schemsi (Turcs et Arméniens devant l’histoire, Genève, Imprimerie nationale, 1919) contains several accounts of atrocities, including mass killings and rapes, perpetrated between November 1914 and May 1915. The first shot was fired by Armenian revolutionaries, not by the CUP.
I have not the time to continue this discussion (because holidays), but I could again in the second part of August.
Kemal, I got you, but you didn’t get me! I said the interview was made in 1926 (not in 1923 as you claim maybe referring to that web site of fabrications of “Holdwater”!) and was published in the same year. No journalist would have made an interview with a state’s president and wait for 3 years to publish it!! Then about Ataturk’s speeches, Akcam states, according to archives, that Ataturk referred twice to the mass killings of Armenians (in 1915) in his speeches in the Turkish Grand Mejlis. If you read the speeches you referred to from Nutuk, Ataturk is denying the Armenian massacres in his era (not in the Young Turk’s era). This is obvious in the second speech. About the money spent by the Armenians and the Turkish claims, I suggest you read the column I referred to above. Also read this article about the money spent by the Turkish state to cover up the Armenian Genocide. U.S. Politicians and Scholars Are Helping Turkey Cover up WWI Armenian Genocide: (“Turkey exerts political leverage and spends millions of dollars in the United States to obfuscate the Armenian genocide”) http://www.alternet.org/rights/87223/ Elif, are all the scholars who tell the truth about the genocide funded by the Armenians?!!(Then, how much money the Armenians would spend to convince the majority of scholars that genocide took place ?!). If this is true, Turkey will have more chance with its state resources. Then why 22 countries recognized the Armenian Genocide?! (beside other bodies like the European Parliament) Are all those funded by the Armenians?!! Most of these countries have good relations with Turkey, and even Poland, that recognized the Armenian genocide, have no Armenian community to press the recognition, and Germany (which was Ottoman Empire’s ally in WW1 and the great supporter now for Turkey to enter the EU) has small Armenian community (30 thousand) comparing to Turkish influential community (3 million). Then, what about the statement of distinguished Jewish scholars from all over the world that affirm the Armenian genocide and other statements? Are they also funded by the Armenians?! Elif, thank you for the link you offered. The paragraph you referred to is: “The journal will be the official journal of IAGS, and it will be published by the University of Toronto Press. Our partner in founding and publishing the journal will be the International Institute of Genocide and Human Rights Studies (IIGHRS), which is a division of the Zoryan Institute, an organization well known for its major contributions not only to study of the Armenian Genocide but to scholarship and education about genocide as a universal problem and as the ultimate crime against humanity which must be fought by all the peoples of our planet. The Chair of the Academic Board of Directors of Zoryan is our own former president of IAGS, Roger Smith,…” Read it well: The date here is May, 2005, which means it came after the signing of the open letter to Turkish Prime Minister in April 6, and 8 years after 1997 when the International Association of Genocide Scholars, an organization of the world’s foremost experts on genocide, unanimously passed a formal resolution affirming the Armenian Genocide. Then, to be a partner in founding and publishing a journal does not mean IAGS is financed by the Armenians or Zoryan, but the reason is mentioned there: Zoryan is “well known for its major contributions not only to study of the Armenian Genocide but to scholarship…” and that Smith was first president of IAGS and then became Zoryan’s Chair of the Academic Board of Directors and not the opposite. Also read: http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/International_Association_of_Genocide_Scholars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Association_of_Genocide_Scholars (Here Lewy didn’t say IAGS is funded by the Armenians)
The Tehcir Law ("Regulation for the settlement of Armenians relocated to other places because of war conditions and emergency political requirements") was passed by the Ottoman Parliament on May 27, 1915 and allegedly came into force on June 1, 1915, with publication in Takvim-i Vekayi, the official gazette of the Ottoman State. The temporary law expired on February 8, 1916.
Tehcir_Law
They were smaller in number and less powerful than the Turkish/Kurdish irregulars who were committing atrocities against the Armenians in those regions for decades before. The Armenians were not a monolithic group, not all Armenians were revolutionaries. The revolutionaries were located in isolated regions of South East Anatolia.
What a bad joke.
« Even before 1878, in the regions of Daron-Sasoun and Vasbouragan there had been underground cells, secret groups, and bands of "brigands" who fought against government forces. During the eighties, Khrimian and Mgrdich Portugalian were active in Van […] Expelled from Van in 1885, Mgrdich Portugalian left the Ottoman Empire and settled in Marseille, where he published the periodical ‘Armenia’. His students and friends in Van considered “Armenia” their voice, and in 1886 established the Armenagan Party, the purpose of which was to “secure the sovereignty of the Armenian people through revolution”. » Hracht Dasnabédian, History of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, Milan, Gemme Edizioni, 1989, p. 21. « As Your Excellency is aware, these three parties [ARF-Dashnak, Hunchak and Armenakan] at Van some six month ago, agreed to sink their differences and unite for the purpose of dealing the with such matters as concerned the general interest of the Millet. The influence of the Dashnakist parti however far exceeds that of the other two, owing to the more active and extreme policy it pursues. It is well organized, has a regular and apparently considerable income for subscriptions, and has its agents throughout the Armenian villages in the vilayet who work for the party and keep in touch with the Central Committee in Van. This party during the past year has actively concerned itself with the secret importation of arms and their distribution amongst its followers. Mauser pistols are the favourite weapon; they are easy hidden and imported and can be used as carbine, being sighted up to 1000 meters. I have seen Armenians openly carrying these arms in the country districts, and though I have seen no rifles in the few villages I have had the opportunity of visiting, a good number of the inhabitants displayed a familiar knowledge of the different types of rifles and mechanism. In Van, it is said that the Armenians are now better armed than the Kurds, and there is no doubt that they have obtained a number of modern rifles in addition to the few old Martinis which the government has distributed to each village. » British consul Ian Smith, report of January 10, 1914, quoted in Justin McCarthy, Esat Arslan, Cemalettin Tashkiran and Ömer Turan, The Armenian Rebellion at Van, Salt Lake City, University of Utah Press, 2006, p. 184. « Armenians of Deurtyol are now well armed with modern rifles, every male adult having one in his possession. » 1913, October 21 -Consul Fontana to His Majesty’s Charge de Affairs Aleppo FO, 371/1773. N° 52128 In Sir P. Mallet’s Despatch No 925 of Kov. 12 (Deurtyol is a town very close to Alexandretta with an Armenian Population of about 5 000). « …Boghos Nubar Pasha has represented to me that the Armenian population of Cilicia would be ready to enroll themselves as volunteers in support of a possible disembarkation at Alexandretta, Mersina, or Adana on the part of the allied forces. » 1914, Nov 12 -Mr. Chetham to Sir Edward Grey FO, 371/2146, No. 70404 Cairo, November 12, 1914. No. 257 (Telegraphic).
« Even before 1878, in the regions of Daron-Sasoun and Vasbouragan there had been underground cells, secret groups, and bands of "brigands" who fought against government forces. During the eighties, Khrimian and Mgrdich Portugalian were active in Van […] Expelled from Van in 1885, Mgrdich Portugalian left the Ottoman Empire and settled in Marseille, where he published the periodical ‘Armenia’. His students and friends in Van considered “Armenia” their voice, and in 1886 established the Armenagan Party, the purpose of which was to “secure the sovereignty of the Armenian people through revolution”. »
Hracht Dasnabédian, History of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, Milan, Gemme Edizioni, 1989, p. 21.
« As Your Excellency is aware, these three parties [ARF-Dashnak, Hunchak and Armenakan] at Van some six month ago, agreed to sink their differences and unite for the purpose of dealing the with such matters as concerned the general interest of the Millet. The influence of the Dashnakist parti however far exceeds that of the other two, owing to the more active and extreme policy it pursues. It is well organized, has a regular and apparently considerable income for subscriptions, and has its agents throughout the Armenian villages in the vilayet who work for the party and keep in touch with the Central Committee in Van. This party during the past year has actively concerned itself with the secret importation of arms and their distribution amongst its followers. Mauser pistols are the favourite weapon; they are easy hidden and imported and can be used as carbine, being sighted up to 1000 meters. I have seen Armenians openly carrying these arms in the country districts, and though I have seen no rifles in the few villages I have had the opportunity of visiting, a good number of the inhabitants displayed a familiar knowledge of the different types of rifles and mechanism. In Van, it is said that the Armenians are now better armed than the Kurds, and there is no doubt that they have obtained a number of modern rifles in addition to the few old Martinis which the government has distributed to each village. » British consul Ian Smith, report of January 10, 1914, quoted in Justin McCarthy, Esat Arslan, Cemalettin Tashkiran and Ömer Turan, The Armenian Rebellion at Van, Salt Lake City, University of Utah Press, 2006, p. 184. « Armenians of Deurtyol are now well armed with modern rifles, every male adult having one in his possession. »
1913, October 21 -Consul Fontana to His Majesty’s Charge de Affairs Aleppo FO, 371/1773. N° 52128 In Sir P. Mallet’s Despatch No 925 of Kov. 12 (Deurtyol is a town very close to Alexandretta with an Armenian Population of about 5 000).
« …Boghos Nubar Pasha has represented to me that the Armenian population of Cilicia would be ready to enroll themselves as volunteers in support of a possible disembarkation at Alexandretta, Mersina, or Adana on the part of the allied forces. »
1914, Nov 12 -Mr. Chetham to Sir Edward Grey FO, 371/2146, No. 70404 Cairo, November 12, 1914. No. 257 (Telegraphic).
« Thousands of Armenians from all over the world flocked to the standards of such famous fighters as Antranik, Kery, Dro, etc. The Armenian volunteer regiments rendered valuable services to the Russian Army in tbe years of 1914-15-16. However, their deeds of heroism and the blood they shed in the conquest of Turkish Armenia by Russia, did not help the Armenian cause. The Dashnag leaders declared, that the Russian government had promised freedom for Armenia. There was no foundation to this: and the deception was exposed finally. But thousands of Armenians had already answered the false call, and incidentally, millions were poured into the coffers of the Dashnak "National Bureau". […] Many Armenians believe that the fate of two millions of their co-nationals in Turkey might nut have proved so disastrous if more prudence had been used by the Dashnag leaders during the war. »
Kapriel S. Papazian, Patriotism Perverted, Boston, Baikar Press, 1934, pp. 38-39.
« Armenian volunteers fought on all the fronts. […] In the Caucasus were in addition to the 150 000 Armenian men who served in the Russian army 50 000 men and thousands of volunteers fought throughout under the supreme commandment of General Nazarbekian. »
A. Aharonian and Boghos Nubar, The Armenian Question Before the Peace Conference, memorandum of the Armenian Delegation, February 1919, p. 6.
« This daring atep on the part of Sasoun forced the Turkish commander to march on Sasoun with two divisions of troops and with nearly 30,000 Kurds. From the first days of July to Sept. 8, the Sasounians were able to resist the Turco-Kurdish attacks, always with the hope that the Russian army would come to their assistance. […] At Shabin-Karahissar, nearly 5,000 Armenians, for twenty-seven days without interruption, in the same month of July [1915], kept busy another division of Turkish troops with their artillery. »
G. Pasdermabijan, Why Armenia Should Be Free, Boston, Hairenik Publishing, 1918, pp. 25-27.
The book of Kara Schemsi (Turcs et Arméniens devant l’histoire, Genève, Imprimerie nationale, 1919) contains several accounts of atrocities, including mass killings and rapes, perpetrated between November 1914 and May 1915. The first shot was fired by Armenian revolutionaries, not by the CUP.
The online version of this book:
http://louisville.edu/a-s/history/turks/turcs_et_armeniens.pdf
For those who cannot read the French, there is this compilation of testimonies, translated into English:
http://karabakh-doc.azerall.info/ru/armyanstvo/arm12eng.htm#z3
An this English version of Ottoman documents:
http://louisville.edu/a-s/history/turks/Documents2.pdf
There was no evidence of any Armenian revolutionaries in the western provinces of Anatolia such as Bursa, Eskshehir, Afionkarahissar, Konya etc.
« Izmit et ses environs, et particulièrement Baghtchédjik, étaient
devenus des centres révolutionnaires extrêmement actifs et qui, avec ceux de la province de Brousse [= Bursa] se trouvèrent à la tête de tous les mouvements. Ce sont ces centres qui entretenaient en grande partie le Tachnaktzoutioun à Constantinople et son organe l’Azadamard. Quant aux Arméniens d’Ada-Bazar, leurs sentiments se dessinèrent quelques années après la Constitution, lors de la fête des saints Sahak et Messrop, inventeurs des caractères arméniens, pendant larquelle ils tuèrent quelques gendarmes et agents de police. Depuis lors, il s’y produisit tous les jours de nouveaux événements dont chacun constituait une attaque à l’amour propre et à la dignité des Musulmans. »
Aspirations et agissement révolutionnaires des comités arméniens avant et après la proclamation de la Constitution ottomane, Istanbul, 1917, p. 213 (available online: http://louisville.edu/a-s/history/turks/comites_armeniens.pdf )
Approximative translation:
“Izmit and its environs, and particularly Baghtchédjik were extremely active revolutionary centers wich, with those of the province of Bursa found themselves at the head of all movements. These are centers which largely maintained the Tachnaktzoutioun in Constantinople and his body the Azadamard. As the Armenians Ada-Bazar, their sentiments drew few years after the Constitution during the feast of Sts Sahak and Messrop, inventors characters Armenians, during they killed some gendarmes and police officers. Since then, he produced every day new events each of which constituted an attack on self-esteem and dignity of Muslims.”
Moreover, the Armenians of several cities of Western Anatolia, like Izmir and Aydin, were not relocated.
Dear Michael,
I have read your excellent (but incomplete) book review and regret that you were immediately attacked by “some who did not read WHAT OTHERS said in the book”. I have read the discussions amongst a few “who preferred to argue their own opinions” instead of the EXCERPTS compiled
from anti-Turkish or neutral sources. I avoided using excerpts of very rich and authentic Turkish archives, or reputable scholars immediately tagged as “denialist” because they disagree with the “genocide fanfare”.
You have written a “book review” and hence “comments should have been made by others who read the same book” and not other (unknown biased) sources. Those who have the courage to “face TRUTH” (and rid themselves of previous brain storms)will have hard time NOT TO ACCEPT what mostly is already available in the free-E-book library of “armenians-1915.blogspot.com”. Can they deny the book of Garekin Pastirmadjian, the photos reports of braveries or war against Turks even before WW1 started? Can they deny the contents of the Memorandum given to the Paris Conference in 1919 reconfirming their treason and demand of land freed of all “non-Christians” who were 80% of the residents? Or can they deny the contents of the Near East Relief Report, dated 31.12.1921
resolved by the US Congress-Senate on April 22, 1922 uninanimously?
Morgenthau was member of Board of Trustess, later member of Executive Committee and hence bears responsibility for the contents of this report, in which there is not a word of atrocities, there is almost thanks to Turks for their protection of Relief Operations, and tells that effective on that date 1 million Armenians were alive in Russian Armenia, 114.000 were in various orphanages over the Ottoman Empire or being fed from same kitchens and 300.000 had evacuated themselves South East sections when French forces pulled out and moved to Syria, etc.
Add them up = 1.414.000. See page 303 of my book with population numbers from various sources. The average is 1.3 million. The most unobjectable figure is the report dated 1.3.1914 prepared by joint French and Armenian Committee for “land distribution” in the autonomous zones in Eastern Anatolia, which was put at start but had to be cancelled when WW1 started. Why should National Geographic, New York Times give “smaller” figures? The exaggerations are so gigantic that it ends up in complete nonesense or belying of the “1.5 millions killed”.
Read your own Armenian heroes, Pastirmadjian, Nasibian, Lalaian, Kachaznuni, or knights for Armenia, James Barton, Cyrus Hamlin, James Grabill…official reports and documents! Ask yourselves, how come Morgenthau who had a “book of lies” written in 1918 by Burton Hendrick to drag USA in WW1, later signed his name under the RELIEF REPORT which belied his own book? Why the book and his diary did not match? Why the Associated Press correspondent George Schreiner bitterly criticized him for “not writing the truth”? The youngsters should not confine themselves to “nationality or religion” which are not common causing frictions or reactions. Why not meet on the basis “of value common to all such as ethics, truths, tolerance, compassion etc.”? There are a handfull of decent “non-Muslims” (Mike is one of them) who stand up for TRUTH! The web site of TurkishArmenians are the greatest contributors for the discovery of truth and “stopping this ongoing nonesense”, which keep the pockets of the actors of this show-biz full, without any serious benefit to the poors in Armenia! The great jackpot is “Compensation” from Turkey and they even have “tax-exemption law ready in California”. Read posting # 2644 on armenians-1915.blogspot and see with your own eyes that USA have for long settled in 1934, all claims of indemnity for her citizens, and these have been settled. Show these documents to your money-hunters and listen to their excuses as regards how to go around them like they did on the “insurance” plot!
Regretably the Protestants in USA-Britain, Catholics in France-Lebanon cannot rid themselves from this “genocide obsession which they need for their identity”. In the name of humane values, let us forget the colour of our passports or where and how or why we pray, and settle on the values of today, for a promising tomorrow, which I will not live long enough to see! My best friends were and are among those who happen to be Armenian, with whom I share all my values, even my sincere findings.
It is time that “those responsible for their own judgment, stop trusting the words of this or that professor or scholar” (like I did)and start counting the hair on the “skin of TRUTH” samples of which I offered to the readers. I cannot “force any one to think as I do”, but at least I should be given the right to defend what “I found to be TRUE and which I challenge everyone in the world to prove that any of my excerpts is untrue”….
Take it easy and lovingly…undress your nationality and faiths and bath in the warm waters of truth and tolerance…
I will answer only for the contents of my book, if ever or if any! SSA