Did the Turks really try to masacre the Armenians? Some facts to consider...

Before you start thinking about the "Armenian Genocide" and the web of lies spun by the Armenian Diaspora over the last 50 years with high ranking officials Writers and Newspaper backing (Such as NewYork Times...) one must consider the below facts... These are facts as recorded by Turkish and non Turkish, Non Muslim documents and governments.

Pictured is an Armenian Tashnak terrorist gang who no doubt killed many Muslim woman and children during those years.

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 favour 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 favouring the Armenians were introduced into the governmental and administrative organization and regulations of these provinces(1). 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 Christians of the Balkans." This appeal gained considerable influence among the Armenians of Eastern Anatolia long after the Russian forces were withdrawn

(1) URAS, Esat, Op. Cit. pp 212 - 215

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.”(2) 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, hO\vever, the Armenians became pawns to advance imperial ambitions at Ottoman expense.

(2) URAS, Esat, op. cit., pp 250 - 251

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. (This is similar to what we saw before the US and Britain drummed up international support for the Invasion of Iraq…) 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 Hairenik 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 favour 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 of Czarist Russia and that he betrayed the Armenians of Anatolia.. (3)

(3) SCHEMSI, Kara, op. cit. pp 20 - 21

In pursuit of these policies, starting in 1880 a number of Armenian revolutionary societies was 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 1890, 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 Louise 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 woorking 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. "(4)

KS 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 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. "(5)

One of the Dashnak founders and idealogists, Dr Jean Loris-Melikoff wrote:

'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. "(6)

(4)NALBANDIAN, Louise, Armenian Revolutionary Movement, University of California Press, 1963 pp 110-111

(5) PAPAZIAN, K. S Patriotism Perverted, Boston, Baker Press, 1934 pp 14-15

(6) LORIS-MELIKOFF, Dr. Jean la Revolution Russe et les Nouvelles Republiques Transcaucasiennes, Paris, 1920 p81

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 Erzurum in 1890. It was followed by the Kumkapl riots in Istanbul the same year, and then risings in Kayseri, Yozgat, Corum 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."(7)
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." (8)
On 28 January 1895 the British Consul in Erzurum, 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. "(9)
"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. "(10)
"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. "(11)

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

“The Armenians are working to secure foreign intervention.” (12)

"In 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 of the Armenian priests. "(13)

"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. "(14)

(7) URAS, Esat; op. cit., p.188.
(8) British Blue Book, NI. 6 (1894), p. S7.
(9) British Blue Book, Nr. 6 (1894), pp. 222 - 223.
(10)URAS, Esat, op. cit., p. 426.
(11) British Blue Book, Nr. 8 (1896), p.l 08.
(12)SCHEMSI, Kara, op. cit., p.ll.

Finally, the Dashnak ideologue Varandian admits that the society "wanted to assure European intervention, "(15) while Papazian stated that "the aims of their revolts was to assure that the European powers would mix into “ottoman internal affairs.” (16). 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.

(13) General MA YEWSKI, Statistique d_es Provinces de Van et de Bitlis, pp.lI-13, Petersburg, 1916.
(14) SCHEMSI, Kara, op. cit., p.1 1.
(15) VARANDIAN, Mikayel, History of the Dashnagtzoutune, Paris, 1932, p. 302.
(16) PAPAZIAN, K. S., op. cit., p.19.

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, Diyarbaklr and Sivas), the two provinces claimed to comprose ''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. (Approximately 16.6% of population in Erzurum, Bitlis, Van, Elaziz, Diyarbakir, Sivas, Adana, Aleppo, Trabzon were Armenian)

Thus even by these extreme claims, the Armenians still constituted no more than one third of the provinces population. According to the Encyclopaedia 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 Russifiying 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 madeby 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 1. 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 for 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.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6p5p3_hey-obama-do-you-like-to-move-ity-h

HAVE THE TURKS ALWAYS ATTACKED AND MISRULED ARMENIANS THROUGHOUT HISTORY?

Armenian propagandists have claimed that the Turks mistreated non-Muslims, and in particular Armenians, throughout history in order to provide support for their claims of "genocide" against the Ottoman Empire, since it would otherwise be difficult for them to explain how the Turks, who had lived side by side with the Armenians in peace for some 600 years, suddenly rose up to massacre them all. The Armenians moreover, have tried to interpret Turkish rule in terms of a constant struggle between Christianity and Islam, thus to assure belief in whatever they say about the Turks on the part of the modem Christian world.

The evidence of history overwhelmingly denies these claims. We already have seen that the contemporary Armenian historians themselves related how the Armenians of Byzantium welcomed the Seljuk conquest with celebrations and thanksgivings to God for having rescued them from Byzantine oppression. The Seljuks gave protection to an Armenian church which the Byzantines had been trying to destroy. They abolished the oppressive taxes which the Byzantines had imposed on the Armenian churches, monasteries and priests, and in fact exempted such religious institutions from all taxes. The Armenian community was left free to conduct its internal affairs in its own way, including religious activities and deducation, and there never was any time at which Armenians or other non-Muslims were compelled to convert to Islam. The Armenian spiritual leaders in fact went to Seljuk Sultan Melikshah (Pictured) to thank him for this protection. The Armenian historian Mathias of Edessa relates that,

"Melikshah's heart is full of affection and goodwill for Christians; he has treated the sons of Jesus Christ very well, and he has given the Armenian people affluence, peace, and happiness. "(3)

"Kilich Arslan's death has driven Christians into mourning since he was a charitable person of high character. "

How well the Seljuk Turks treated the Armenians is shown by the fact that some Armenian noble families like the Tashirk family accepted Islam of their own free will and joined the Turks in fighting Byzantium.

Turkish tradition and Muslim law dictated that non-Muslims should be well treated in Turkish and Muslim empires. The conquering Turks therefore made agreements with their non-Muslim subjects by which the latter accepted the status of zhimmi, agreeing to keep order and pay taxes in return for protection of their rights and traditions. People from different religions were treated with an unprecedented tolerance which was reflected into the philosophies based on goodwill and human values cherished by great philosophers in this era such as Yunus Emre and Mevlana Celaleddin Rumi who are well-known in the Islamic world with their benevolent mottoes such as "having the same view for all 72 different nations" and "you will be welcome whoever you are, and whatever you believe in". This was in stark contrast to the terrible treatment which Christian rulers and conquerors often have meted out to Christians of other sects, let alone non-Christians such as Muslims and Jews, as for example the Byzantine persecution of the Armenian Gregorians, Venetian persecution of the Greek Orthodox inhabitants of the Morea and the Aegean islands, and Hungarian persecution of the Bogomils.

The establishment and expansion of the Ottoman Empire, and in particular the destruction of Byzantium following Fatih Mehmed's conquest of Istanbul in 1453 opened a new era of religious, political, social, economic and cultural prosperity for the Armenians as well as the other non-Muslim and Muslim peoples of the new state. The very first Ottoman ruler, Osman Bey (1300-1326), permitted the Armenians to establish their first religious center in western Anatolia, at Kutahya, to protect them from Byzantine oppression. This center subsequently was moved, along with the Ottoman capital, first to Bursa in 1326 and then to Istanbul in 1461, with Fatih Mehmet issuing a ferman definitively establishing the Armenian Patriarchate there under Patriarch Hovakim and his successors(4). As a result, thousands of Armenians emigrated to Istanbul from Iran, the Caucasus, eastern and central Anatolia, the Balkans and the Crimea, not because of force or persecution, but because the great Ottoman conqueror had made his empire into a true center of Armenian life. The Armenian community and church thus expanded and prospered as parts of the expansion and prosperity of the Ottoman Empire.

The Gregorian Armenians of the Ottoman Empire, like the other major religious groups, were organized into millet communities under their own religious leaders. Thus the ferman issued by Fatih Mehmet establishing the Armenian Patriarchate of Istanbul specified that the Patriarch was not only the religious leader of the Armenians, but also their secular leader. The Armenians had the same rights as Muslims, but they also had certain special privileges, most important among which was exemption from military service. Armenians and other non­Muslims generally paid the same taxes as Muslims, with the exception of the Poll Tax (Harach or Jizye), which was imposed on them in place of the state taxes based particularly on Muslim religious law, the Alms Tax (Zakat) and the Tithe (Osur), from which non-Muslims were exempted. The Armenian millet religious leaders themselves assessed and collected the Poll Taxes from their followers and turned the collections over to the Treasury officials of the state.

The Armenians were allowed to establish religious foundations (vakif) to provide financial support for their religious, cultural, educational and charity activities, and when needed the Ottoman state treasury gave additional financial assistance to the Armenian institutions which carried out these activities as well as to the Armenian Patriarchate itself. These Armenian foundations remain in operation to the present day in the Turkish Republic, providing substantial financial support to the operations of the Armenian church.

By Ottoman law all Christian subjects who were not Greek Orthodox were included in the Armenian Gregorian millet. Thus the Paulicians and Yakubites in Anatolia as well as the Bogomils and Gypsies in the Balkans were counted as Armenians, leading to substantial disputes in later times as to the total number of Armenians actually living in the Empire.

The Armenian community expanded and prospered as a result of the freedom granted by the sultans. At the same time Armenians shared, and contributed to, the Turkish-Ottoman culture and ways of life and government to such an extent that they earned the particular trust and confidence of the sultans over the centuries, gaining the attribute "the loyal millet". Ottoman Armenians became extremely wealthy bankers, merchants, and industrialists, while many at the same time rose to high positions in governmental service. In the 19th century, for example, twenty-nine Armenians achieved the highest governmental rank of Pasha. There were twenty-two Armenian ministers, including the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Finance, Trade and Post, with other Armenians making major contributions to the departments concerned with agriculture, economic development, and the census. There also were thirty-three Armenian representatives appointed and elected to the Parliaments formed after 1826, seven ambassadors, eleven consul-generals and consuls, eleven university professors, and forty-one other officials of high rank.(Facts from the Turkish Armeniens, Jamanak, Istanbul, 1980, p. 4 et KO(:AS, Sadi; Tarih Boyunca Ermeniler ve Ttirk­Ermeni Iliskileri, Ankara, 1967, pp. 92 -115. )

Over the centuries Armenians also made major contributions to Ottoman Turkish art, culture and music, producing many artists of first rank who are objects of praise and sources of pride for Turks as well as Armenians in Turkey. The first Armenian printing press was established in the Ottoman Empire in the 16th century.

Thus the Armenians and Turks, and all the various races of the Empire lived in peace and mutual trust over the centuries, with no serious complaints being made against the Ottoman system or administration which made such a situation possible. It is true that, from time to time, internal difficulties did arise within some of the individual millets. Within the Armenian millet disputes arose over the election of the patriarch between the "native" Armenians, who had come to Istanbul from Anatolia and the Crimea, and those called "eastern" or "foreign" Armenians, who came from Iran and the Caucasus. These groups often complained against each other to the Ottomans, trying to gain governmental support for their own candidates and interests, and at the same time complaining about the Ottomans whenever the decisions went against them, despite the long-standing Ottoman insistence on maintaining strict neutrality between the groups. The gradual triumph of the "easterners" led to the appointment of non­religious individuals as Patriarchs, to corruption and misrule within the Armenian millet, and to bloody clashes among conflicting political groups, against which the Ottomans were forced to intervene to prevent the Armenians from annihilating each other.

These internal disputes, as well as the general decline of religious standards within the Gregorian millet led many Armenians to accept the teachings of foreign Catholic and Protestant missionaries sent into the Empire during the 19th century, causing the creation of separate millets for them later in the century. The Armenian Gregorian leaders asked the Ottoman government to intervene and prevent such conversions, but the Ottomans refrained from doing so on the grounds that it was an internal problem which had to be dealt with by the millet and not the state. Bloody clashes followed, with the Gregorian patriarchs Chuhajian and Tahtajian going so far to excommunicate and banish all Armenian protestants(5). Later on, serious clashes also emerged among the Armenian Catholics as to the nature of their relationship with the Pope, with the latter excommunicating all those who did not accept his supremacy, forcing the Ottomans finally to intervene and reconcile the two Catholic groups in 1888.

The freedom granted and the great tolerance shown by the Ottomans to non-Muslims was so well known throughout Europe that the empire of the sultans became a major place of refuge for those fleeing from religious and political persecution. Starting with the thousands of Jews who fled from persecution in Spain following its re-conquest in 1492, Jews fled to the Ottoman Empire from the regular pogroms to which they were subjected in Central and East Europe and Russia. Catholics and Protestants likewise fled to the Ottoman Empire, often entering the service of the sultans and making major contributions to Ottoman military and governmental life. Many of the political refugees from the reaction that followed the 1848 revolutions in Europe also fled for protection to the Ottoman Empire.

The claims that the Ottomans misruled non-Muslims in general and the Armenians in particular thus are disproved by history, as attested by major western historians, from the Armenians Asoghik and Mathias to Voltaire, Lamartine, Claude Farrere, Pierre Loti, Nogueres Ilone Caetani, Philip Marshall Brown, Michelet, Sir Charles Wilson, Politis, Arnold, Bronsart, Roux, Grousset Edgar Granville Gamier, Toynbee, Bernard Lewis, Shaw, Price, Lewis Thomas, Bombaci and others, some of whom could certainly not be labelled as pro-turkish. To cite but a few of them:

"The great Turk is governing in peace twenty nations from different religions. Turks have taught to Christians how to be moderate in peace and gentle in victory. "

"Despite the great victory they won, Turks have generously granted to the people in the conquered regions the right to administer themselves according to their own rules and traditions."

Politis who was the Foreign Minister in the Greek Government led by Prime Minister Venizelos:

"The rights and interests of the Greeks in Turkey could not be better protected by any other power but the Turks."

"It is an undeniable historic fact that the Turkish armies have never interfered in the religious and cultural affairs in the areas they conquered. "

"Unless they are forced, Turks are the world's most tolerant people towards those of other religions:"

Even when Napoleon Bonaparte sought to stir a revolt among the Armenian Catholics of Palestine and Syria to support his invasion in 1798-1799, his Ambassador in Istanbul General Sebastiani replied that "The Armenians are so content with their lives here that this is impossible. "

(3) MATHIAS of EDDESSA, Chronicles, Nr. 129

(4) URAS, Esat, Tarihte Ermeniler ve Ermeni Meselesi, 2nd Edition, Istanbul 1976, p. 149

(5) SCHEMSI, Kara Turcs et Armeniens devant l"Historie, Geneve, Imprimerie Nationale, 1919, p.19

The Turks took our lands... Oh Help us Christians of the world...

This is a common one because it allows all the other Turcophobic people to jump onboard the bandwagon... This was its intense and purpose!!!

Pictured is a Turkish Soldier who was killed by bayonet while he slept during the early hours of 16th March 1920. The English beseiged a Turkish station and killed sleeping troops.

The territory in which the Armenians lived together for a time never was ruled by them as an independent, sovereign state. This territory was ruled by others from the earliest times from which there is evidence that Armenians lived there. From 521 to 344 B.C. it was a province of Persia. From 334 to 215 B.C. it was part of the Macedonian Empire. From 215 to 190 B.C. it was controlled by the Selephkites. From 190 until 220 A.D. it frequently changed hands between the Roman Empire and the Parthians. From 220 until the start of the fifth century it was a Sassanian province, and from then until the seventh century it belonged to Byzantium. From the seventh to the tenth centuries it was controlled by the Arabs. It returned again to Byzantine rule in the tenth century and, finally, it came under the domination of the Turks starting in the eleventh century.
The Armenians living in this territory who remained under the rule of these various empires, could not continuously maintain any sort of independent or unified Armenian state. At the most, a few Armenian noble families dominated certain districts as feudal vassals of the neighboring imperial suzerains, serving as buffers between the powerful empires that surrounded them. Most of these Armenian "principalities" were, thus, simply set up by local Armenian nobles within their own feudal dominions, or by the neighboring empires, who in this way secured their military services against their enemies. The best example of this was the:
Baghratid family, long brought forward by Armenian nationalist historians as an example of their historic independent existence, which was in fact put in charge of its territory by the Arab Caliphs. Some of the "Armenian" families which assumed the title of principality at this time were, moreover, really Persian rather than Armenian in origin. That they did not constitute any sort of independent nation is shown in the statement of the Armenian historian Kevork Aslan:

"The Armenians lived as local notables. They had no feeling of national unity. There were no political bonds or ties among them. Their only attachments were to the neighboring notables. Thus whatever national feelings they had were local. "(ASLAN, Kevork, L'Armenie et les Armeniens, Istanbul 1914)

These Armenian principalities existed'for centuries under the control of various great empires and states, often changing sides to secure maximum advantage, and thus earning for Armenians often caustic and critical remarks from contemporary historians, as for example the Roman historian Tacitus, who in his Annalium liber wrote:
"The Armenians change their position relating to Rome and the Persian Empire, sometimes supporting one and sometimes the other", concluding that they are "a strange people."
It was as a result of these conditions, and then, the Armenians' lack of unity and strength, their very failure to create a real state, their weakness in relation to their neighbors. the fact that the territory in which they lived was the scene of constant conflict among their more powerful suzerains from all sides, that they often were deported, or moved voluntarily, from the lands where they first lived when they appeared in history. Thus when they fled from the Persians they settled in the area of Kayseri, in Central Anatolia. They were deported by the Sassanians into central Iran, by the Arabs into Syria and the Arabian Peninsula, by the Byzantines into Central Anatolia and to Istanbul, Thrace, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Rumania. Hungary, Transylvania and the Crimea. During the Crusades, they went to Cyprus, Crete and Italy. In flight from the Mongols they settled in Kazan and Astrakhan in Central Asia, and. finally, they were subsequently deported by the Russians from the Crimea and the Caucasus into the interior of Russia. As a result ofthese centuries-long deportations and migrations, then, the Armenians were widely scattered from Sicily to India and from the Crimea to Arabia, thus forming what they call "the Armenian diaspora" centuries before they were deported by the Ottomans in 1915.
The Armenians broke away from the Byzantine church in 451,150 years after they accepted Christianity, leading to long centuries of Armenian-Byzantine clashes which went on until the Turks settled in Anatolia starting in the late 11 th century, with the Byzantines working to wipe out the Armenians and eliminate the Armenian principalities in order to maintain Greek Orthodoxy throughout their dominions. Contemporary Armenian historians report in great detail how the Byzantines deported Armenians as well as using them against enemy forces in the vanguard of the Byzantine armies. As a result of this, when the Seljuk Turks started flooding into Anatolia starting in the late 11 th century, they did not encounter any Armenian principalities; the only force remaining to resist them was that of Byzantium. The Seljuk ruler Alparslan captured the lands of the Armenian Principality of Ani in 1064, but it had previously been brought to an end by the Byzantine in 1045, nineteen years earlier, with Greeks being brought in to replace the Armenians who had been deported. It is theref9re false to claim that the Seljuk Turks destroyed any Armenian principality, let alone a state. This already had been done by the Byzantines, and it was in fact the social and economic ferment that resulted which greatly facilitated the subsequent Turkish settlement. Contemporary Armenian historians interpret this Turkish conquest of Anatolia to have constituted their liberation from the long centuries of Byzantine misrule and oppression. The Armenian historian Asoghik thus reports that "Because of the Armenians' enmity toward Byzantium, they welcomed the Turkish entry into Anatolia and even helped them." The Armenian historian Mathias of Edessa likewise relates that the Armenians rejoiced and celebrated publicly when the Turksconquered his city, Edessa (today's Urfa).
An Armenian principality did arise in Cilicia starting in 1080 but it was the result, not of the Turkish settlement in Anatolia, as has been claimed, but, rather, of the Byzantine destruction of the last Armenian principalities in eastern Anatolia, which caused a flood of
Armenians fleeing into Cilicia. This principality maintained good relations with the Turks even as it provided assistance to the Crusaders who passed through its territory on their way to the Holy Land, while accepting the suzerainty, first of Byzantium, and then after it declined, of the Crusader Kingdoms, the Mongols, and, finally, the Catholic Lusignan family which gained control of Cyprus. This sort of relationship with "unbelievers", however, displeased the Gregorian Armenian church, with the resulting internal divisions playing a significant role in the Principality's conquest by the Mamluks of Syria and Egypt in 1375. In the end, the most significant consequence of this last Armenian principality was the establishment of a separate Armenian church from the one centered at Echmiadzin, which added to the internal divisions within Armenian Orthodoxy which remain important to the present day.
Thus when eastern Anatolia was conquered by Fatih Mehmet II and Yavuz Sultan Selim L it was taken from the White Sheep Turkomans and from the Safavids of Iran, who had occupied it after the Byzantines had retired; while Yavuz Selim took Cilicia from the Mamluks. In no case, therefore, did the Ottoman Turks conquer or occupy an existing Armenian state or principality. In every case, these Armenians had previously been conquered by peoples other than the Turks.

Common Lies told by Armenians to lay claim to Anatolia and their false "Genocide" accusations...

Anatolia was the homeland of the Armenians for thousands of years...

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."(l)

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 of Indo 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 favored by Armenian historians claims that they descended from a Thracian-Phrygian group, that originated in the Balkan Peninsula and by the pressure ofIllyrians 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.

4. The Southern Caucasus Theory.

This idea claims that the Armenians are related racially and culturally to the peoples of the Southern Caucasus and that, therefore, they
originated there. It is, however, supported only by the fact that Darius defeated the Armenians in the Caucasus. The Armenians are in no way related to any of the Caucasian races.

5. The Turanian Theory.

Some Armenians have adduced similarities of certain elements of the Armenian language and culture with those of some Turkish and Azeri tribes of the Caucasus to document a relationship, but this remains to be proved.
Whichever, if any, of these theories is correct, it is very certain that the Armenians did not originate in Anatolia, nor did they live there for three to four thousand years, as claimed. They have put forward these ideas merely to support their claims that the Turks drove them out of a homeland in which they have lived for thousands of years, but they can not stand up to the facts.

1. CARRIERE, Auguste, Moise de Khoren el la Genealogie Patriarcale, Paris, 1896

ARMENIAN DIASPORA SLAMS OBAMA

As reactions of Armenians in U.S. against U.S. President Barack Obama because he did not use the word "genocide" in his speech on April 24 continues, reports mentioning that United States will reduce the economical aid to Armenia increased the disturbance among Armenian diaspora.

Director of one of the major Armenian organizations in United States, Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) Ken Hacikyan sent a letter to US President and criticized Obama over his "betrayal‘ to his given promise and over decrease in the financial aid to Armenia saying, ?these injured US Armenians seriously".
Director of ANCA, Ken Hacikyan wrote that Armenians dissappointed that President Obama did not keep the promise he gave during elections and his promise towards development and strenthening of State of Armenia.
Director of ANCA defined decrease in the financial aid to Armenia as "seriously disturbing" and called Obama for attention that Armenia isolated by two of its neighbours; Turkey and Azerbaijan. Hacikyan also stated that Armenia suffers of global economical crisis and cut of 38% in financial aid to Armenia is disturbing. Over April 24 statement of Obama, ANCA director said that the attitude of U.S. President with not keeping his word injured U. S. Armenians seriously and it did not serve to American people.
ANCA director said that the dialogue between Turkey and Armenia should not be connected with the issue of so called Armenian genocide.

FOR ARMENIAN STUDENTS, STUDYING TURKEY POSES A DILEMMA

Wednesday, 20 May 2009
It is a small class of 12 master's students in the department of Turkology at Yerevan State University...
it is a small class of 12 master's students in the department of Turkology at Yerevan State University. For almost all of the Armenian students, Turkey is as close as a stone's throw even though the border remains closed, but Turks are as far away as one can ever imagine.
"What does the word ‘Turk' tell you?‘ was the question asked on Monday by a group of Turkish journalists who are in Yerevan for the International Hrant Dink Foundation's Turkey-Armenia Journalist Dialogue Project, funded by the Heinrich Boell Stiftung Association. In response, only one student said "just human," in contrast with the others who said they remember 'genocide‘ when they hear the word 'Turk.‘ Ashkhen Babayan said she had been to the Turkish city of Antalya and had interacted with Turks and found them quite personable. Another student, Anahit Veziryan, said she would go to Turkey one day to find the house where her father lived in the eastern Turkish city of Van. 'My father described the house that he once lived in but was forced to leave by the Turks,‘ she said, adding that she couldn't do it right now. When asked why, she had difficulty describing her feelings of fear toward Turks, but her professor helped. 'Is it safe for an Armenian to go to Turkey?‘ asked Ruben Melkonyan, professor of Turkology at the university. 'Our hope is with the Turkish people who are democrats and who can face the truth. I agree with Hrant Dink, who said Turkey can consolidate its democracy from within. I can't say that all Turks are bad,‘ he added. And the truth, according to him, is that the Turkish belief that there was no 'genocide‘ against the Armenians in 1915 is not right. 'Your official thesis is based on lies, and ours is the truth,‘ he emphasized. 'The recognition of genocide also has a legal aspect, as well as political. An apology is not enough; Armenians should be compensated financially,‘ he said. The young students have been carrying the heavy baggage of another official thesis, the thesis of Armenia. Even though they study Turkology, they face a dilemma: They want to know everything about Turkey, but from a distance, because in their minds, the "Turk" is a horrible creature.

‘Telling stories, interaction will help'
Melkonyan said the "trauma of genocide‘ has been handed down to generations of people in Armenia, as assassinated Turkish-Armenian journalist Dink put it, and the only way to overcome it is by 'storytelling.‘ He said there were examples of it in Turkish literature, as seen in the books of Fethiye гetin, Yusuf Bağcı and İrfan Pala. Professor Melkonyan said he was from the eastern Turkish city of Muş and had visited his village in the province, but he was not welcomed. Aris Nalcı from the International Hrant Dink Foundation based in İstanbul invited the students to Turkey for an internship at the Turkish-Armenian weekly Agos. He also said there were currently two interns from Yerevan State University at Agos. Addressing the students, Nalcı said: 'You know how to deal with this trauma. You cannot learn about Turkey just by reading the books given to you in Armenia. You should read books from Turkey, too." ‘Turkey should stay out of Karabakh dispute?
Melkonyan said Armenia and Azerbaijan were independent countries, so they could settle their disagreements over the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh without Turkey's interference. "Turkey should not interfere in the Karabakh row,‘ he told a group of Turkish journalists this week as he answered questions regarding Turkish-Armenian relations. 'Azerbaijan, Armenia and Turkey are independent states.‘ Armenian leaders have criticized Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan for making the normalization of ties with Armenia conditional on a settlement in Nagorno-Karabakh during a visit to Baku last week. He said he, his students and the department of Turkology follow the developments in Turkey closely. 'We read Turkish newspapers every day," he said.

Anahit Veziryan said her father described the house in Van of which he was forced out by the Turks. This was probably 95 (approx) years ago. Did her father tell her stories of "Terrible Turks" who masacred the innocent Armenians when she was still in her cradle? My parents sang songs and lullaby to put me to sleep... No wonder many of these Armenians are so traumatised!

DOORS OF TURKISH ARCHIVES ARE WIDE OPEN FOR ALL RESEARCHERS

Thursday, 21 May 2009
During the conference titled "Armenian atrocities in Caucasus according to Ottoman Archives" Associate Professor Mustafa Budak said that Armenian issue is not only a political issue but it is a historical one also.
Organized by Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University Faculty of Science and Letters, History Department, and presented by Prime Ministry State Archives Deputy Director General Associate Professor Mustafa Budak, the conference held in Troia Culture Center did arouse great interest. Making a speech during the conference, Associate Professor Mustafa Budak said that Armenian issue is not an only a political issue but it is a historical issue also. Budak said that although the events in 1915 are named as a "genocide" by some circles, the documents tell the contrary of these allegations. Budak said, "The issue that is known as "Armenian issue" is not just a political issue.
We think the contrary and it is proven in our archives with documents. We invite all researchers to Prime Ministry archives. Our doors are wide open for all researchers. There are some gossip and statements claiming that archives are not open. They claim that Turks hiding the documents relating so called Armenian genocide. This is not true. Prime Ministry State archives are open for all Turkish and foreigner researchers."

The Armenian National Archives however remain closed to this day... The Armenians do not wish to disclose their archives. If any sane person with half a mind had access to the archives, they would discover the Armenian revolutianaries were responsible for the massacres of the Turks, Muslims, Kurds and other Armanians who were not on the same thought pattern as the revolutionaries.
Why else do the Armenian Archives remain closed? If they trully wanted this saga to end, they would urge their immensely powerful world wide lobbyists to force Turkey (which Turkey and every Turk on the face of this planet would happily go) to and accept the findings of an international commission made up of scholars, historians and the like. Not politicians!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQZQRMFxZec&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ehistoryoftruth%2Ecom%2Fvideos%2Fvideos%2Farmenian%2Drevolts%2Dand%2Dmassacres%2Darmenian%2Dterror%2Ehtml&feature=player_embedded

Recommendations for the Armenian Diaspora

Bruce Fein
Posted May 8, 2009 12:28 PM (EST)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-fein/recommendations-for-the-a_b_193136.html


The ongoing high-level efforts between Turkey and Armenia to normalize relations, including establishing diplomatic relations and opening the land border between the two countries, have received President Obama's imprimatur during his recent visit to Turkey.
While the negotiated resolution of any conflict is a desirable goal, the Turkish government would be wise to weigh the public's expectations of this dialogue with existing realities, which will affect the immediate and long-term outcome of bilateral developments between the two countries and Turkey's relations with the United States and Azerbaijan.
First, there is a dichotomy of interests among the Armenian stakeholders in this dialogue. The interests of the Armenian Diaspora, even different Diaspora organizations, the American political establishment and Armenia are divergent. The increasingly boisterous voices in the Armenian Diaspora which object to the Armenian government's engagement with Turkey; the dismissal of the bilateral process by U.S. lawmakers who carry the Armenian lobby's torch in Congress; as well as the full blown campaign by all Armenian advocacy and lobby groups in furthering their legislative, educational, political and public affairs agenda in the U.S.and elsewhere, are proof of this divergence.
On the other hand, the Turkish community abroad, particularly in the U.S., has by and large voiced support of the Turkish government's dual approach that manifests itself in engaging in diplomatic efforts to normalize relations with Armenia on the one hand, and in committing to accept the findings of an impartial international commission that will address the contested period of Armenian-Ottoman history and the "genocide" question, on the other.
However, supporting the process does not mean turning a blind eye to competing Turkish interests and other realities. There are wide-spread concerns among Turks and others that Turkey will lose much and gain little from the entente it labors upon with Armenia. Without a doubt, the most significant loss Turkey may endure from this process, particularly from opening its land border with Armenia, could be estranging its natural strategic ally, Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan has shown significant reaction to Turkey's perceived "de-linking" of the continuing Armenian occupation from its negotiations with Armenia.
Those in support of normalizing relations with Armenia frequently allude to the potential spillover effect this will have on a peaceful solution to the Karabakh conflict and also stem the "genocide" campaigns by the Armenian Diaspora. However, others argue that the economic effect of a closed land border with Turkey is the only incentive for Armenia to engage in a meaningful dialogue with Azerbaijan on lifting its occupation. Some Azeri analysts argue that removing this sanction may deprive Armenia of any incentive for peace and leave Azerbaijan with no option but a new war.
The Turkish-Armenian dialogue is known to have been advocated by successive U.S. administrations as a way to "pacify" the Armenian lobby and to weaken the incessant congressional efforts for U.S. recognition of the "Armenian genocide," a development that would most certainly damage U.S.-Turkey relations.
However, pursuing this advice without addressing the underpinnings of the global Armenian campaign against Turkey will most certainly result in great disappointment for Turkey.
The "Armenian Genocide" narrative is an existential narrative for the Armenian Diaspora. It has become the glue that bonds the community across social, economic and political lines. Perpetuating this narrative and activating the community around legislative, educational, philanthropic and political endeavors has become the lifeline for Armenian Diaspora organizations, including the Armenian Church. Hatred against modern day Turks and Turkey has become an identity strengthening tool, particularly employed toward young Armenians, and examples of this hateful behavior against ordinary Turks abound.
It is in this area where Turkish analysis about the Armenian Diaspora's state of mind, its wide-reaching agenda and impact seems to be most deficient. The benefits that Turkey expects from rapprochement with Armenia can not be achieved as long as the Armenian Diaspora's realities are ignored. Unless Armenia and other interested parties can engage the Armenian Diaspora in this process and help bring about fundamental changes in the community, the "genocide" issue will remain at the center of their agenda. Consequently, Turkey's outreach to Armenia will have no effect on the Armenian Diaspora and its international agenda against Turkey, including its lobbying of the U.S. Congress and the Administration.

Bringing about change in the attitudes of the Armenian Diaspora needs to focus on:

* Stopping hate: It is clear to everyone who follows the Armenian Diaspora that the pursuit of genocide recognition has turned into a campaign of hate against Turkey and modern day Turks. This hatred has been manifested in worldwide terrorism and the murder of 40 Turkish diplomats; the continuing adoration of these killers, as well as ongoing harassment and intimidation of Turkish Americans. More troubling, is the fact that hate against Turkey seems to grow among many young Armenian adults who hold more severely hateful perceptions of Turks.
* Defending academic freedom and stopping intimidation and harassment of scholars: The Armenian Diaspora has successfully created an aura of intimidation in academia through their consistent vilification of scholars, who do not agree with the Armenian narrative of history. By slandering any scholar who deviates from the Armenian narrative as a "genocide denier" and attempting to deny such scholars access to academic and public platforms, the Armenian lobby is effectively stifling more research and debate on this history.

* Exposing Armenian "buy-out" of scholars: Armenian foundations and wealthy Armenian Americans are pouring money into American universities to support scholars, including Turkish ones, whose positions corroborate the Armenian narrative. The existence of "Armenian Genocide" study centers at leading U.S. universities rests on the largesse of such Armenian donations. Research in this area has effectively been turned into an Armenian funded cottage industry.

* Advocating the opening of Armenian Archives: Opening all Armenian archives to independent scholarly review will unearth the complete narrative of Ottoman-Armenian history, including the Armenian independence movement and revolt.

* Stopping foul play: Armenian Diaspora groups must be held accountable to stick to the same rules that apply to all advocacy groups. Many of them have not. The best example of such foul play is the Armenian National Committee of America, which is currently under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice for possible violations of its legal status and other U.S. laws governing lobbying.

* Exposing the futility of political lobbying: The Armenian Diaspora lobbyists have invested much stock and capital in lobbying efforts to legislate history. Turkey must unequivocally state that it is an Armenian Diaspora illusion that such third country political pressures can force Turkey to accept their narrative and issue an "apology," opening the way for other demands by the Armenian Diaspora such as reparations or territorial claims.

* Looking forward: The Armenian community can gain tremendously by looking forward and reaching out to Turkey as their heritage country. Turkey and Turkish civil society should extend a hand of friendship toward the Armenian Diaspora. Turks, by and large, hold no animosity toward Armenians and will embrace Diaspora Armenians warmly. The rich Armenian culture continues to be part of Turkey's culture, its music, art, architecture, folklore and cuisine. These common bonds can be revived and the Armenian Diaspora, not Armenia, can herald this revival.

* Ending Armenia's isolation: The Armenian Diaspora has played a significant role for Armenia. However, the Armenian Diaspora's efforts cannot replace the economic and political benefits of normalizing Armenia's relations with its neighbors, particularly Azerbaijan, and integrating the country into the economic and strategic regional framework. The Armenian Diaspora in the United States, in particular, should be the advocate of moving Armenia away from Russia and Iran and closer to Turkey and the U.S.

* Believing in dialogue: The current Turkish government has long extended a hand of friendship and reconciliation toward the Armenian Diaspora and Armenia in its invitation to form an international historical commission. Turkey's invitation and willingness to support such a comprehensive effort and to accept its findings may not remain valid forever. The Armenian Diaspora should unclench its fist and take this hand, as it is the only way for peace and reconciliation.


Bruce Fein commands impressive experience and influence in the corridors of both national and international power. He graduated from Harvard Law School with honors in 1972. After a coveted federal judicial clerkship, he joined the U.S. Department of Justice where he served as assistant director of the Office of Legal Policy, legal adviser to the assistant attorney general for antitrust, and the associate deputy attorney general. Mr. Fein then was appointed general counsel of the Federal Communications Commission, followed by an appointment as research director for the Joint Congressional Committee on Covert Arms Sales to Iran. He recently served on the American Bar Association's Task Force on Presidential signing statements.He is frequently quoted in The New York Times, The Financial Times, The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, Newsweek, The Wall Street Journal and other major national publications. He has been featured on the cover of the American Bar Association Journal, the legal profession's most prestigious publication.He has authored several volumes on the United States Supreme Court, the United States Constitution, and international law. He has assisted three dozen countries in constitutional revision, including Russia, Spain, South Africa, Iraq, Cyprus, and Mozambique, and consulted foreign nations on matters ranging from telecommunications and cable regulation to sugar quotas, oil and gas pipelines, immigration, election laws, and human rights.Mr. Fein has been an adjunct scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, a resident scholar at the Heritage Foundation, a lecturer at the Brookings Institute, and an adjunct professor at George Washington University. He has also been executive editor of World Intelligence Review, a periodical devoted to national security and intelligence issues. He regularly lectures to foreign guests and dignitaries visiting the United States on behalf of the State Department.At present, he writes regular columns for The Washington Times and Slate devoted to legal and international affairs. He is a guest columnist for numerous other newspapers, and articles for professional and lay journals. He is often invited to testify regularly before Congress and administrative agencies by both Democrats and Republicans. He appears regularly on national and international television, cable, and radio programs as an expert in foreign affairs, international and constitutional law, telecommunications, terrorism, national security, and related subjects. He is a regular guest at the BBC, C-SPAN, CNN, Reuters, MSNBC, and NPR.

http://www.thelichfieldgroup.com/

Turkish Historical Society

Dr. Yusuf Halacoglu is a world renowned Turkish professor of history and former president of the Turkish Historical Society. He is an expert on the Armenian Genocide allegations and Turkish-Ottoman history.
Yusuf Halacoglu was born in Adana, Turkey in 1949. In 1971 he graduated from the History Department in Istanbul University. He joined Istanbul University's Modern History staff in 1974. In 1978 he obtained his doctorate and became an associate professor by 1982, and a full professor by March of 1989.

Yusuf Halacoglu's Position on the Armenian Genocide
Nonetheless today, thousands of historians interested in the Armenian Genocide allegations come to Istanbul every year to research the events. This is the reason why the Armenian Genocide thesis was so well accepted, because Ottoman archives were not available for research; today, the Armenian Genocide thesis is under heavy criticism and is not as widely accepted anymore as it was in the 1980s. Researchers and famous historians of Ottoman and Islamic studies have argued against the Armenian Genocide, such as world renowned historian Dr. Bernard Lewis and Dr. Yusuf Halacoglu.
Yusuf Halacoglu, had uncovered thousands of documents that questioned long-held beliefs that the Turks were cruel to the Armenian people. Uncovering archival material on Ottoman orders and reports, Yusuf Halacoglu wrote in his books that evidence was simply not there to support a genocide conclusion. In contrast, Yusuf Halacoglu writes in his book "The Story of 1915: What Happened to the Ottoman Armenians?":
Yusuf Halacoglu wrote:
Research shows that in 1915, the relocated Armenians and Greeks received 3 krs. (Ottoman currency) a day if they were adults and 60 paras (Ottoman currency) a day for food...Talat Pasha had instructed that Armenians' debts to the state should not be collected.
Yusuf Halacoglu explains that the government spent money on the Armenian relocations for providing the Armenian people with food, water, protection, and shelter and that they also spent significant time writing laws, regulations, and telegrams to ensure that the Armenians reached their destinations and were able to resettle in their designated relocation areas.
In addition, Yusuf Halacoglu provides proof that many Armenians during the same government were given permission to return to their homes and their property was returned to them.
Yusuf Halacoglu explains that the reason for the lower population is the significant Armenian migrations through Allied ships which had helped Armenian populations of the Ottoman Empire migrate to Russia, America, and France, where there are significant populations of Armenians today.
Yusuf Halacoglu wrote:
I always receive proposals from Dashnak (Armenian Revolutionary Federation) members who want to find out what really happened. If Armenians are sincere, it will be known soon.

Recent History
Dr. Yusuf Halacoglu released several books dealing with the Armenian Relocations of 1915 in Turkey. He has even released English books such as "The Story of 1915: What Happened to the Ottoman Armenians".
Yusuf Halacoglu was recently removed from Directorship of the Turkish Historical Society for reasons that were never clarified but may have been related to the erratic political movements by the AKP government during the summer of 2008. He had served in the Turkish Historical Society as Director for 15 years.
Yusuf Halacoglu has become an expert on the Armenian Genocide thesis and explains he is ready to debate anyone publicly at any moment regarding the issue.