Armenian Betrayal and Atrocities

2010-05-30T10:37:00.002+10:00

Dr. Ali Soylemezoglu refuted the allegations of so called Armenian genocide that are made in a documentary broadcasted by German public televisions ARD
and Phönix. Giving a lecture entitled "Did Turks commit genocide? Confuting the Movie "Ageth" with Armenian Sources" at the Central Office of Union of
European Turkish Democrats (UETD), Dr. Soylemezoglu underscored that both Western and objective Armenian sources show that Armenian genocide allegations
are baseless.
Stating that the documentary "Ageth" includes almost all of the allegations against Turkish people, Soylemezoglu said, "There are about 25 important
allegations against Turks in the documentary. It can be seen that all of those allegations can be refuted refering to Armenian, English, American and
German sources. You do not even need Turkish sources to see that these allegations are baseless."
Stressing that even objective Armenian sources refute the allegations in the movie "Ageth", Soylemezoglu said, "For example, the documentary claims that
Ottoman Armenians did not initiate any rebellion and it is just accusation of Ottomans against Armenians. On the other hand, Armenian sources tell in
detail how Armenians fought against Ottoman forces. They tell how they cooperated with Russian, English and French troops. These facts are even told by
Armenians. English sources also confirm these."
Reminding that so called documentary explained the intention of Ottoman goverment as annihilating Armenian people, Soylemezoglu said, "We learn from
American sources that Ottoman government cooperated with United States to aid Armenian people. There were several American missionaries and American
schools throughout the Ottoman Empire. There were American institutions at 50 different adresses. The Ottoman Empire gave consent to United States for
aiding Armenian people and distributed the donations to Armenian people. If the Ottoman Empire intended to annihilate Armenians, they would not let
American institutions hold such a campaign to aid Armenian's. Would American Institutions in Ottoman Empire not react if they had witnessed massacre of
Armenians? Other than that, the Ottoman Empire provided Armenians money, food and shelter. Would the state help Armenians if it intended to terminate them?
These are all told by American sources in detail."
Stating that tens of thousands people died during forced immigration but the intention was not committing a genocide, Soylemezoglu said, "According to
American, English and Armenian sources, there were more than 1,5 million Armenian's alive in 1919. Armenian population in Ottoman Empire was less than 1,75
million. That means about 250,000 Armenians might have lost their lives during the incidents. These are all told in their own documents. We are guilty that
we do not inform World public on these."

US diplomat backs proposed commission on Armenian issue

2009-06-18T14:20:00.002+10:00

A senior US diplomat has indicated the Obama administration's support for Turkey's almost five-year-old proposal to establish a joint commission of historians to resolve the question of whether the killings of Anatolian Armenians during World War I amounted to genocide. Remarks by Philip Gordon, assistant secretary of state for Europe and Eurasian affairs, came on Tuesday at a hearing of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the US House of Representatives. The hearing, chaired by Congressman Robert Wexler, was titled “Strengthening the Transatlantic Alliance: An Overview of the Obama Administration's Policies in Europe.”
Gordon recalled that he had recently paid visits to Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia since he observed that there are both challenges and opportunities in this region.
“You have two parallel but separate tracks going on; a Turkey-Armenia normalization reconciliation process that we do think is quite potentially historic, where the two countries have agreed on a framework for normalizing their relations. That would include opening the border, which has been closed for far too long, which would establish diplomatic relations and would provide commissions in key areas, including history,” Gordon said. He was apparently referring to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's 2005 letter to then-Armenian President Robert Kocharyan, inviting him to establish a joint commission of historians and experts from both Turkey and Armenia to study the events of 1915 using documents from the archives of Turkey, Armenia and any other country believed to have played a part in the issue.
At a joint press conference in Ankara during Obama's landmark visit to Turkey in early April, President Abdullah Gül recalled the proposal and said: “If it has a high interest in this issue, any country -- for example, it may be the US, it may be France -- can join this joint commission of historians, and we are ready to [face] the results.”
Gordon, meanwhile, also said: “And we encourage that process and we support it. We have said that it is an independent process and believe that it should move forward, regardless of whatever else is happening in Europe or anywhere else, because both countries would benefit. That said, it is nonetheless the case that at the same time negotiations on Nagorno-Karabakh are going on between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and that is part of the context in which the region moves forward. And we're encouraging that process as well. So, again, our view is that these are separate tracks. They're moving forward at different speeds. But we are engaged vigorously on both, because if both were to succeed, it really would be an historic opportunity for the region, from which all three of those countries would benefit.”
Gordon's remarks found a rapid response from the US-based Armenian diaspora. In a press release delivered later the same day, the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) said, “The establishment of an Armenia-Turkey commission of historians, a measure Turkey has long sought to cast a doubt over the overwhelming historical record of the Armenian genocide, stands in stark contrast to President Obama's statements during his campaign for the White House.”

18 June 2009, Thursday
TODAY'S ZAMAN ANKARA
http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=178384&bolum=102

Turkish and Armenian Archives

2009-06-08T15:11:00.010+10:00

Claims the Turkish Archives are closed is common. For this is another of the lies told by Armenains to help rally support for their cause.
On the contrary, the Ottoman Imperial Archives is one of the richest in the world and, naturally, the most frequently consulted collection of written sources with regard to the 1915 events. Any research that failed to consult the Turkish State Archives in matters relating to the common histories of Middle and Near East, Balkans, Mediterranean, North Africa, Arabic countries, Caucasus, and beyond, would simply be incomplete. It would be like trying to solve a dispute bwteen two parties by hearing only one of those parties. It would be unfair, incorrect, unscholarly, and unethical.

Turkish State Archives have been brought in line with European Union regulations, which means relevant laws have been amended to enable the same-day-issuance of the research permits. A comprehensive web page (www.devletarsivleri.gov.tr) has been created to include digital copies of classified documents and their translation into contemporary Turkish. Inclusion of English translations of the authentic documents is underway. These initiatives have already resulted in scholars from 80 countries to engage themselves in the archives since 2003. In recent years, everybody from Armenian researchers, to German, Italian and Austrian Historians, to the BBC cameras have had access to research what they liked.
There are approximately 150 million documents that span every period and region of the Ottoman realm in the stacks and vaults of the Ottoman Archives. Each day, new collections in these Ottoman archives are opened to researchers. All these extensive records are well preserved and organized.

Armenians still claim however the archives remain closed...

Prof Dr Stefano Trinchese
Chieti University
Italy
"There is no truth to the claims the Turkish Archives are difficult to access. I went to Istanbul and visited the Turkish Archives. It is true that I faced basic issues initially , but I face similar issues in Italy. In Armenia, I was denied access to the Archives. I wrote a letter but didn’t even get a reply. I tried but never got anywhere."

Prof. Laurenti Barsegian
Genocide Museum Director
Erivan/Armenia
"I have never seen any work by historians, based on the Turkish Archives."

Aras Arafyan
Armenian Historian
England
Has taken copies of thousands of documents both hardcopy and microfilm from the Turkish Archives in Istanbul. (3000 photocopies on the “Armenian Genocide” were taken throughout a 2 year research period.) This fact is documented in the Archive activity logbooks.

Hilmar Keizar
German-American Pro Armenian Historian.
Kaiser has conducted research in more than 60 archives including the Turkish-Ottoman Archives in Istanbul. He has taken photocopies of 5900 documents during his research.

Gegham Manukian
Dashnaktsutyun Party Media Relations
"Why doesn’t Turkey open its archives? We have opened our archives. (???) I have applied many times to no avail and I don’t know of anybody who has accessed the Turkish Archives."

Dr Alexander Safarian
Erivan University
When we refer to archives, we generally mean Historical Archives. I was unable to go to any libraries or Archives in Turkey. I didn’t really want to. I have access to all the documents I need right here in Armenia. I don’t have the will or the want to view Turkish Archives.

TURKEY URGES OPENING OF ARMENIAN ARCHIVE* Turkey, May 21, 2008 (UPI)

-- Turkey has offered $20 million to open an Armenian archive in the United States, claiming documents there will support its version of the 1915 massacre. Yusuf Halacoglu, head of the state-funded Turkish Historical Society, told Hurriyet the archive in Boston includes important documents on the events of 1915. Halacoglu said he had been told the archives cannot be opened because they need proper cataloging. "This would directly open a debate over the genocide claims," he said. "Armenians are aware of this and therefore they are doing their best not to sit at the table." Armenians and most non-Turkish scholars of the period say 1.5 million Armenians were killed by the Ottoman Empire in 1915 and generally label the deaths genocide -- a term the Turkish government disputes. The official Turkish version is that about 300,000 Armenians and 300,000 Turks were killed in an Armenian bid for independence.

The first published catalog of Ottoman archival holdings appeared in 1955 and consisted of ninety pages of archival inventory and commentary. Archivist Attila Çetin followed in 1979 with a more extensive catalog, which is also available in Italian. As the classifying and organizing of the archives continued, the catalog grew. The 1992 edition is 634 pages long. The expanded 1995 compilation provides access to even more documents. Revised editions are to be forthcoming from time to time, as more detailed descriptions become available for the various fonds or individual record groups.
Ottoman archival documentation constitutes an unequaled trove of information about how people lived from the fifteenth through the early twentieth centuries in a territory now comprised of twenty-two nations. İlber Ortaylı, director of the Topkapı Palace Museum at Istanbul, argues that the history of the Ottoman Empire should not be written without Ottoman sources. He is not alone in this. His position is buttressed by a number of specialists in the study of the Ottoman state and society. Albert Hourani, for example, the late British scholar of Middle Eastern affairs, argued that his best advice to history students considering Middle East specialization would be to "learn Ottoman Turkish well and learn also how to use Ottoman documents, since the exploitation of Ottoman archives, located in Istanbul and in smaller cities and towns, is perhaps the most important task of the next generation."

The Archives and the Armenians
There are few comprehensive sources about Armenian life in Anatolia outside of Ottoman archival sources. Diplomatic records, such as those cited by Armenian historian Vahakn Dadrian, as the basis for discussions among genocide scholars are spotty and intertwined with wartime politics. The Ottoman Ministry of the Interior (Dahiliye Nezareti) was the government department directing and supervising the relocation and resettlement of the Armenian population. The collection of the ministry documents covers the period from 1866 to 1922 and consists of 4,598 registers or notebooks. It is classified according to twenty-one subcollections, according to office of origin. Among the available documents in the Ottoman archives are several dozen registers containing the records of the deliberations and actions of the Council of Ministers, which set policies, received reports, and discussed problems that arose regarding the relocations and other wartime events. The minutes of its meetings, deliberations, resolutions, and decisions are bound in 224 volumes covering the years 1885 through 1922. These registers include each and every decree pertaining to the decision to relocate the Ottoman Armenians away from the war zones during World War I. The Records Office of the Sublime Porte (Babıali Evrak Odası) also contains substantial documentation, including the correspondence between the grand vizier and the ministries, as well as the central government and the provinces that can illuminate the events of 1915.
It is ironic, therefore, as politicians seek to deliberate on questions of history, that few historians investigating Armenian issues have actually consulted the Ottoman archives. As Australian historian Jeremy Salt has explained,
The Ottoman archives remain largely unconsulted. When so much is missing from the fundamental source material, no historical narrative can be called complete and no conclusions can be balanced. If the Ottoman sources are properly utilized, the way in which the Armenian question is understood is bound to change.
There is little explanation as to why more historians do not consult the Ottoman archives. They are open to all scholars. Bernard Lewis, Cleveland Dodge Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, who has worked extensively in the Ottoman archives since 1949, has argued that "the Ottoman archives are in the care of a competent and devoted staff who are always willing to place their time and knowledge at the disposal of the visiting scholar, with a personal helpfulness and courtesy that will surprise those with purely Western experience. [These records] are open to all who can read them." The late Stanford Shaw, Professor Emeritus of Turkish and Judeo-Turkish History at the University of California, Los Angeles, also spoke highly of the helpfulness of the archivists. He argued that the sheer amount of new material available removed any excuse for any scholar investigating various nationalist revolts not to spend time examining the new sources.
Even Taner Akçam of University of Minnesota, one of the most vocal proponents of Armenian genocide claims, noted the improvement in the working conditions of the archives. In a recent article, he thanked the staff and especially the deputy director-general of state archives for their help and openness during his last visit. The archivists are now helpful to all researchers, not only those pursuing research which supports the Turkish government's line.

Turkish Military Archives
The archives of the Turkish General Staff Military History and Strategic Studies Directorate in Ankara (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Genelkurmay Askeri Tarih ve Stratejik Etüt Başkanlığı Arşivleri) provide a military perspective. Indeed, more than the Ottoman Archives in the Prime Minister's Office, this repository provides a rich trove of information about internal conditions in the empire, operations of the Ottoman army, and the Special Organization (Teşkilat-ı Mahsusa), somewhat equivalent to the Ottoman special forces, for the period 1914-22.
The World War I and War of Independence archives alone number over five and a half million documents spread among Turkish General Staff Division reports and War Ministry files. Division 1 (Operations) contains military operations plans and orders, operations and situation reports, maps and overlays, general staff orders, mobilization instructions and orders, organizational orders, training and exercise instructions, spot combat reports. Division 2 (Intelligence) contains intelligence estimates and reports and orders of battle. Divisions 3 and 4 (Logistics) contain files concerning procurement, animals, munitions, transportation, rations, and accounting. The Ministry of War files contain the General Command's ciphered cables to military units as well as the papers of the infantry, fortress artillery, and other divisions. Vehip Pasha's Third Army (Erzurum), Jemal Pasha's Fourth Army (Damascus), and Ali İhsan Pasha's Sixth Army (Baghdad) are included among the staff files. These also include the Lightning Armies and Caucasian Armies groups.

Armenian Archives
A full study of the Armenians during World War I should consider material from all sides in a conflict. The Armenian community maintains a number of archives. The archives in Watertown, Massachusetts, contain repositories from the Dashnak Party (Dashnaksutiun, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation) and the First Republic of Armenia. The above, together with the archives of the Armenian patriarchate in Jerusalem and the Catholicosate, the seat of the supreme religious leader of the Armenian people, in Echmiadzin, Armenia, remain closed to non-Armenian researchers. Tatul Sonentz-Papazian, Dashnakist archivist, for example, denied İnönü University scholar Göknur Akçadağ access to the Watertown archives in a June 20, 2008 letter.

Dashnaksutiun archives are also not available to those Armenians who do not tow the party line. Historian Ara Sarafian, director of the Gomidas Institute in London, complained that "some Armenian archives in the diaspora are not open to researchers for a variety of reasons. The most important ones are the Jerusalem Patriarchate archives. I have tried to access them twice and [been] turned away. The other archives are the Zoryan Institute archives, composed of the private papers of Armenian survivors, whose families deposited their records with the Zoryan Institute in the 1980s. As far as I know, these materials are still not cataloged and accessible to scholars."

Beyond the closure of Armenian archives to non-Armenian and even to some Armenian scholars, few of these allow the public to access catalogs detailing their holdings.
Many scholars writing on the Armenian question utilize Britain's National Archives (formerly the Public Record Office) in Kew Gardens. While the British government has made available many of their diplomats' reports for study, much material from the British occupation of Istanbul (1919-22) and elsewhere in Anatolia following World War I remains closed to researchers under the Official Secrets Act and are only partially available in the archives of the government of India in Delhi.

British authorities say they remain sealed for national security reasons. Their release should be important to historians as they will include evidence regarding returning Armenian refugees and other related matters. Files of the British Eastern Mediterranean Special Intelligence Bureau also remain closed, perhaps because the British government does not wish to expose those who may have committed espionage on behalf of Britain. These are important because they should enable historians to research British espionage and sabotage, demoralizing propaganda, and attempts to provoke treason and desertion from Ottoman ranks during and immediately after 1914-18.

The documents of the Secret Office of War Propaganda, which under the direction of Lord James Bryce and Arnold Toynbee developed propaganda used against the Central Powers during World War I, also remain sealed. Their opening will allow historians to assess whether British officials in the heat of war created or exaggerated accounts of deliberate atrocities.

National Archives and the “Armenian Genocide”

2009-06-08T13:41:00.014+10:00

The Russian National Communist Party Archives Central Committee Secret Archives houses many documents which shed light onto what really happenned in 1915.

Document 141
Dated 23 January 1915. Commander of troops stationed at Kars sent a letter to the Commander of the Russian Caucasus Forces requesting knowledge of:
In the Caucasus, which Armenian Voluntary units and who they are, which regiments they are connected to, and who among these will be located to the properties within Kars. This will allow civil unrest between the citizens and units, murders, robberies, and any type of force will lead to serious disruptions as a lack of discipline and moral amongst them.

Public Record Office in London
FO 371/2485-30439
Dated 6th march 1915 states the Armenians are at the command of the Russians and assisting the French in Adana. The reason for this is to destroy the Ottoman Empire.

Azerbaijan National Archives
The national archives of Azerbaijan detail how the Armenians committed atrocities in the towns of Shamahi, Zengezur, Kuba against Azeri Turks during 1918 – 1919 while under Russian command. What is most important is these documents are written in Russian by Russians.

French Chief of General Staff
Africa Content 64369/11
Dated 2nd October 1916 discloses how the Armenians were being trained by the French Legion in Egypt, Lebanon, and Cyprus so they can fight in Anatolia.

Patrick Devejian
State Minister, France
“Armenians didn’t only escape, but they then joined the French armed forces and fought with the French”

Ottoman Archives
BOA HR SYS 2543/4 Lef 9-10
Dated 2nd February 1919, this document describes Armenians dressed in French Military uniforms killing Turkish Soldiers in Halep.

Russian National Communist Party Archives Central Committee Secret Archives
Document 32
Dated 10 January 1915; The mayor of Iskenderiya sent a letter to the garrison commander. He writes 1200 volunteers had taken up arms, In addition citizens of Iskenderiya numbering 5100 volunteers also had joined. Stating this number can be increased to 10 000 volunteers if needed.
He requests 5100 rifles to be sent from Tiflis for these units.

British Archives and the "Armenian Genocide"

2009-06-08T11:46:00.018+10:00

The Public Record Office in London, is home to tens of thousands of documents which refute the Armenian Claims. This is the primary reason why Britain will not accept the falsified claims.
The below are some examples.

FO 371/284-22083
Dated 23rd February 1915, this document is a copy of a report sent to the Russian Foreign Affairs Minister Sazonov (1910 – 1916) by the Russian Embassy. The report blatantly states the Russians had armed the Armenians in Eastern Anatolia so they can rise against the Turks.
FO 371/25167
Dated 4th March 1915, is an example of a telegraph sent from Bulgaria. It states Bulgarian Armenian Committee member Monsieur Varandian, has gathered a force of 20 000 Armenian Volunteers who want to fight against the Turks and await British assistance to assist them to Iskenderun. Varadian also states there is half this number of volunteers ready to take up arms against the Ottomans in the United States.

FO 371/46942
Dated 20 March 1915; This document, written on original Armenian Tashnaksutyun Rebel Federation stationary states there are many Armenian volunteer units at the ready.

FO 371/2146-68443
Dated 7 November 1914 states the Head of the Armenian Delegate Boghus Nubar, who is actually an Ottoman Pasha, states they are ready to fight alongside the Russians the objective being a greater independent Armenia.

FO 371/2146-70404
Dated 12 Nov 1914, is proof of the planned uprising of the Armenians against their ruling Ottoman Government, and mention of the Armenian Betrayal, labelling the Armenians as Traitors.

FO 371/ 2485-126836
Dated 7th September 1915, a report sent to the British Foreign affairs gives news of an Armenian Captain named “Tarko” who is in preparations for a massacre against the Ottoman Turks, and informs how they have planned with the finest detail.

Planned and Systematic Massacre of the Armenians? You be the Judge.

2009-06-08T10:10:00.016+10:00

The picture shows Armenians raiding a mosque at Zeyten, Maras. Note Armenians were not exactly innocent lambs as they try to portray themselves.

DID THE TURKS UNDERTAKE A PLANNED AND SYSTEMATIC MASSACRE OF THE ARMENIANS IN 1915?

One of the Armenians biggest claims is the Ottoman Empire tried to systematically massacre its Armenian population, hence the term "Genocide" is thrown around sparingly by the Armenian Diaspora and those politicians who are under extreme pressure from them.
If a minority within your country spent the last 30 years building up arms, in acts of treason, and deliberatly sided with your enemies during times of war, sent out killing gangs and terrorists to raid your cities and villages; only aim to kill your citizens just becuase they were loyal citizens, taking advantage of your struggle with invading armies, knowing the men of the villages were at the front defending their own country, causing havoc and trouble to affect your military supply lines, destroy your own arsenal of weapons or steal them to use against your own citizens and armies... what would you do?

The beginning of World War I and the Ottoman entry into the war on November 1, 1914 on the side of Germany and Austria - Hungary against the Entente powers was considered as a great opportunity by the Armenian nationalists. Louise Nalbandian relates that "The Armenian revolutionary committees considered that the most opportune time to begin a general uprising to achieve their goals was when the Ottoman Empire was in a state of war", (24) and thus less able to resist an internal attack.
Even before the war began, in August 1914, the Ottoman leaders met with the Dashnaks at Erzurum in the hope of getting them to support the Ottoman war effort when it came. The Dashnaks promised that if the Ottomans entered the war, they would do their duty as loyal countrymen in the Ottoman armies. However they failed to live up to this promise, since even before this meeting took place, a secret Dashnak Congress held at Erzurum in June 1914 had already decided to use the oncoming war to undertake a general attack against the Ottoman state(25). The Russian Armenians joined the Russian army in preparing an attack on the Ottomans as soon as war was declared. The Catholicos of Echmiadzin assured the Russian General Governor of the Caucasus, Vranzof-Dashkof, that "in return for Russia's forcing the Ottomans to make reforms for the Armenians, all the Russian Armenians would support the Russian war effort without conditions.”(26). The Catholicos subsequently was received at Tiflis by the Czar, whom he told that" The liberation of the Armenians in Anatolia would lead to the establishment of an autonomous Armenia separated from Turkish suzerainty and that this Armenia could be made possible with the protection of Russia. "(27).
Of course the Russians really intended to use the Armenians to annex Eastern Anatolia, but the Catholicos was told nothing about that.
As soon as Russia declared war on the Ottoman Empire, the Dashnak Society's official organ Horizon declared:
"The Armenians have taken their place on the side of the Entente states without showing any hesitation whatsoever; they have placed all their forces at the disposition of Russia; and they also are forming volunteer battalions.”(28)
The Dashnak Committee also ordered its cells that had been preparing to revolt within the Ottoman Empire:
"As soon as the Russians have crossed the borders and the Ottoman armies have started to retreat, you should revolt everywhere. The Ottoman armies thus will be placed between two fires: of the Ottoman armies advance against the Russians, on the other hand, their Armenian soldiers should leave their units with their weapons, form bandit forces, and unite with the Russians. "(29) "The Hunchak Committee will use all means to assist the Entente states, devoting all its forces to the struggle to assure victory in Armenia, Cilicia, the Caucasus and Azerbaijan as the ally of the Entente states, and in particular of Russia."(30)
And even the Armenian representative in the Ottoman Parliament for Van, Papazyan, soon turned out to be a leading guerrilla fighter against the Ottomans, publishing a proclamation that:

"The volunteer Armenian regiments in the Caucasus should prepare themselves for battle, serve as advance units for the Russian armies to help them capture the key positions in the districts where the Armenians live, and advance into Anatolia, joining the Armenian units already there. "(31)

As the Russian forces advanced into Ottoman territory in eastern Anatolia, they were led by advanced units composed of volunteer Ottoman and Russian Armenians, who were joined by the Armenians who deserted the Ottoman armies and went to fight on the Russians side. Many of these also formed bandit forces with weapons and ammunition which they had for years been stocking in Armenian and missionary churches and schools, going on to raid Ottoman supply depots both to increase their own arms and to deny them to the Ottoman army as it moved to meet this massive Russian invasion. Within a few months after the war began, these Armenian guerrilla forces, operating in close coordination with the Russians, were savagely attacking Turkish cities, towns and villages in the East; massacring their inhabitants without mercy, while at the same time working to sabotage the Ottoman army's war effort by destroying roads and bridges, raiding caravans, and doing whatever else they could to ease the Russian occupation. The atrocities committed by the Armenian volunteer forces accompanying the Russian army were so severe that the Russian commanders themselves were compelled to withdraw them from the fighting fronts and send them to rear guard duties. The memoirs of all too many Russian officers who served in the East at this time are filled with accounts of the revolting atrocities committed by these Armenian guerrillas, which were savage even by the relatively primitive standards of war then observed in such areas.(32)

These Armenian atrocities didnt only affect Turks and other Muslims. The Armenian guerrillas had never been happy with the failure of the Greeks and Jews to fully support their revolutionary programs. As a result in Trabzon and vicinity they massacred thousands of Greeks, while in the area of Hakkari it was the Jews who were rounded up and massacred by the Armenian guerrillas (33). Basically the aim of these atrocities was to leave only Armenians in the territories being claimed for the new Armenian state; all others therefore were massacred or forced to flee for their lives so as to secure the desired Armenian majority of the population in preparation for the peace settlement.
Leading the first Armenian units who crossed the Ottoman border in the company of the Russian invaders was the former Ottoman Parliamentary representative for Erzurum, Karekin Pastirmaciyan, who now assumed the revolutionary name Atmen Garo. Another former Ottoman parliamentarian, Hamparsum Boyaciyan, led the Armenian guerrilla forces who ravaged Turkish villages behind the lines under the nickname "Murad", specifically ordering that" Turkish children also should be killed as they form a danger to the Armenian nation." Another former Member of Parliament, Papazyan, led the Armenian guerrilla forces that ravaged the areas of Van, Bitlis and Mush.
In March 1915 the Russian forces began to move toward Van. Immediately, on April 11, 1915 the Armenians of Van began a general revolt, massacring all the Turks in the vicinity so as to make possible its quick and easy conquest by the Russians. Little wonder that Czar Nicho1as II sent a telegram of thanks to the Armenian Revolutionary Committee of Van on April 21, 1915, "thanking it for its services to Russia." The Armenian newspaper Gochnak, published in the United States, also proudly reported on May 24, 1915 that "only, 1,500 Turks remain in Van", the rest having been slaughtered.
The Dashnak representative told the Armenian National Congress assembled at Tiflis in February 1915 that "Russia provided 242,000 rebels before the war even began to arm and prepare the Ottoman Armenians to undertake revolts", giving some idea of how the Russian -Armenian alliance had long prepared to undermine the Ottoman war effort (34). Under these circumstances, with the Russians advancing along a wide front in the East, with the Armenian guerrillas spreading death and destruction while at the same time attacking the Ottoman armies from the rear, with the Allies also invading the Empire along a wide front from Galicia to Iraq, the Ottoman decision to deport Armenians from the war areas was a moderate and entirely legitimate measure of self defence.
Even after the revolt and massacres at Van, the Ottoman government made one final fort to secure general Armenian support for the war effort, summoning the Patriarch, some Armenian Members of Parliament, and other delegates to a meeting where they were warned drastic measures would be taken unless Armenians stopped slaughtering Muslims and working to undermine the war effort. When there was no evident lessening of the Armenian attacks, the government finally acted. On April 24, 1915 the Armenian revolutionary committees were closed and 235 of their leaders were arrested for activities against the state. It’s the date of these arrests that in recent years has been annually commemorated by Armenian Nationalist groups throughout the world in commemoration of the "massacre" that they claim took place at this time. (Note that of all the 235 Armenians arrested for treason on April 24 1915 all 235 were admitted to Prisons in Ankara and Istanbul.) No such massacre, however, took place, at this or any other time during e war: In the face of the great dangers which the Empire faced at that time, great care was taken to make certain that the Armenians were treated carefully and compassionately as they ere deported, generally to Syria and Palestine when they came from southern Anatolia, and Iraq if they came from the north. The Ottoman Council of Ministers thus ordered:
"When those of the Armenians resident in the aforementioned towns and villages who have to be moved are transferred to their places of settlement and are on the road, their comfort must be assured and their lives and property protected; after their arrival their food should be paid for out of Refugees' Appropriations until they are definitively settled in their new homes. Property and land should be distributed to them in accordance with their previous financial situation as well as their current needs; and for those among them needing further help, the government should build houses, provide cultivators and artisans with seed, tools, and equipment. "(35)
"This order is entirely intended against the extension of the Armenian Revolutionary Committees; therefore do not execute it in such a manner that might cause the mutual massacre of Muslims and Armenians." "Make arrangements for special officials to accompany the groups of Armenians who are being relocated, and make sure they are provided with food and other needed things, paying the cost out of the allotments set aside for emigrants. "(36)
"The food needed by the emigrants while travelling until they reach their destinations must be provided ... for poor emigrants by credit for the installation of the emigrants. The camps provided for transported persons should be kept under regular supervision; necessary steps for their well being should be taken, and order and security assured. Make certain that indigent emigrants are given enough food and that their health is assured by daily visits by a doctor. .. Sick people, poor people, women and children should be sent by rail and others on mules, in carts or on foot according to their power of endurance. Each convoy should be accompanied by a detachment of guards, and the food supply for each convoy should be guarded until the destination is reached ... In cases where the emigrants are attacked, either in the camps or during the journeys, all efforts should be taken to repel the attacks immediately ..."(37)
Out of some 700,000 Armenians who were transported in this way until early 1917, certainly some lives were lost, as the result both of large scale military and bandit activities then going on in the areas through which they passed, as well as the general insecurity and blood feuds which some tribal forces sought to carry out as the caravans passed through their territories. The Armenians had spent no time in killing Ottoman Subjects who were not in favour of their cause, as such many Kurdish tribes were attacked and killed. The Kurds took this as an opportunity to seek revenge. In addition, the deportations and settlement of the deported Armenians took place at a time when the Empire was suffering from severe shortages of fuel, food, medicine and other supplies; as well as large-scale plague and famine. It should not be forgotten that, at the same time, an entire Ottoman army of 90,000 men was lost in the East as a result of severe shortages or that through the remainder of the war as many as three or four million Ottoman subjects of all religions died as a result of the same conditions that afflicted the deportees. How tragic and unfeeling it is, therefore, for Armenian nationalists to blame the undoubted suffering of the Armenians during the war to something more than the same anarchical conditions which afflicted all the Sultan's subjects. This is the truth behind the false claims distorting historical facts by ill-devised mottoes such as the ''first genocide of the twentieth century" which Armenian propagandists and terror groups try to revive to justify the same tactics of terror today which brought such horrors to the Ottoman Empire during the last century.

(24) NALBANDIAN, Louise, op. cit., p.11 I.
(25) Aspirations et Agissements Revolutionnaires des Comites Armeniens avant et apres la Proclamation de la Constitution Ottomane, Istanbul, 1917, pp.144 -146.
(26) TCHALKOUCHIAN, Gr., Le Livre Rouge, Paris, 1919, p.12.
(27) TCHALKOUCHIAN, Gr., op. cit.
(28) URAS, Esat, op. cit., p. 594.
(29) HOCAOGLU, Mehmed, Tarihte Ermeni Mezalimi ve Ermeniler, Istanbul, 1976, pp. 570-571
(30) Aspirations et Agissements revolutionnaires des Comites Armeniens, pp.151-153.
(31) URAS, Esat, op. cit., pp. 5% - 600.
(32 ) Journal de Guerre du Deuxieme Regiment d'Artillerie de Forteresse Russe d'Erzeroum, 1919.
(33) SCHEMSI, Kara, op. cit., p. 41 and p. 49.
(34) URAS, Esat, op. cit., p. 604.
(35)Council of Ministers Decrees, Prime Ministry's Archives, Istanbul, Volume 198, Decree 1331/163, May 1915.
(36)British Foreign Office Archives, Public Record Office, 37119158/E 5523.

U.S.-Turkish Relationship ‘Exceptionally Strong,’ Mullen Says

2009-06-03T12:02:00.003+10:00

http://elitestv.com/pub/2009/06/us-turkish-relationship-exceptionally-strong-mullen-says

By Gerry J. Gilmore
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, June 2, 2009 – The United States and the Republic of Turkey remain steadfast allies and friends in a modern-day relationship that stretches back decades, the U.S. military’s top officer said here yesterday.

The U.S. and Turkish governments worked together during the Cold War to surmount “some big, big challenges,” Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said during his keynote remarks at the 28th Annual Conference on U.S.-Turkish Relations dinner held at the Gaylord resort and convention center at National Harbor, Md.

The annual conference provides a forum for U.S. and Turkish government, military, commerce and academia leaders to discuss issues and opportunities in the two nations’ mutual interest.

Turkey fought on the allied side with the United States during World War II and joined the United Nations after the war. The then-Soviet Union’s demands to place military bases in the Turkish Straits prompted U.S. President Harry S. Truman to establish the Truman Doctrine in 1947, which spelled out America’s intent to preserve Turkey’s sovereignty, and that of Greece, which was then experiencing communist-inspired civil strife. Turkey joined NATO in 1952 and its soldiers fought alongside U.N. troops during the Korean War.

The relationship between the United States and Turkey today is “exceptionally strong” and “vitally important,” Mullen said. Turkey has deployed troops to Afghanistan as part of Operation Enduring Freedom since 2001.

Turkey is a secular Muslim republic of some 70 million citizens. U.S.-Turkish relations soured in March 2003 after Turkey’s parliament declined to allow U.S. forces to pass through southern Turkey into northern Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

However, Mullen said, the United States in recent years has provided more support to Turkey in its fight against Kurdistan Workers’ Party terrorists, known by the acronym PKK. The PKK wants to establish a socialist, Kurdish state, parts of which would include southeastern Turkey and northeastern Iraq; both regions have majority-Kurdish populations.

The increased American support for Turkey in its battle against the PKK, Mullen pointed out, has contributed toward a vast improvement of U.S.-Turkish relations.

Mullen also cited President Barack Obama’s early April visit to Turkey’s capital of Ankara, where he addressed the Turkish parliament.

Obama told Turkish legislators that he supports Turkey’s desire for membership in the European Union and that he appreciates Turkey as a partner in the fight against terrorism. The president also praised Turkey for enacting many societal reforms, including the lifting of prohibitions on Kurdish teachings and broadcasts.

Turkey also has good relations with Pakistan, Mullen said, noting that he has discussed that issue with senior Turkish military leaders, including Gen. Ilker Basbug, the chief of the Turkish General Staff.

The Pakistani military is currently engaged in an offensive against Taliban militants that operate in Pakistan’s northwestern region near its border with Afghanistan.

Basbug, too, hailed U.S.-Turkish relations during remarks he made prior to Mullen’s speech.

“Turkish-United States’ cooperation in various areas has become a ‘must,’” Basbug said, for resolving thorny regional issues. Terrorist-inspired violence, he said, constitutes the key threat that all peace-loving nations must confront together.

Turkey’s strategic location amid Europe and the Middle East, Basbug said, means that the United States could benefit from Turkey’s “soft power” diplomatic credentials to help settle problems in its “immediate neighborhood.”

Wrapping up, Mullen recounted his first experiences with the “open and warm” Turkish people during a military assignment in the early 1970s.

“We need your friendship,” Mullen told the mostly-Turkish audience. “We need your support.”

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

2009-05-31T14:08:00.010+10:00

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?

2009-05-30T18:54:00.008+10:00

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...

2009-05-30T17:47:00.006+10:00

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...

2009-05-30T17:24:00.007+10:00

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

2009-05-23T19:19:00.003+10:00

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

2009-05-23T18:44:00.003+10:00

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

2009-05-23T18:32:00.006+10:00

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

2009-05-23T17:11:00.002+10:00

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

2009-05-17T22:22:00.002+10:00

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.

System of a Down... an example of Armenian Ways!

2009-05-17T21:53:00.002+10:00

There was an anti System of a Down article in a music website today, it talked about the bands nationalistic tendencies. It seems most of it is rooted from Serj Tankian's racism towards Turks. Perhaps not every band member approves of the Anti-Turkish rhetoric that is riddled in System of A Down's music. However, it seems the bands strong emotions about what some Armenian scholars call the Armenian Genocide, may be why such hatred towards Turkey and the Turkish people are present.
The people need to know the true nature of this bands hidden nationalistic agenda and how well they create hate campaigns against the Turkish government including yelling out racist statements and protesting statements like "**** the Turkish government!" at their concerts.

System of a Down's Political Attitude
Many people know System of a Down as a band that supposedly is politically motivated and a band that raises awareness on issues that trouble society.
System of a Down is a very religious band in which all of its members are Armenian Orthodox Christian. They have been raised in a specific kind of Armenian community that preaches hatred against Turks and Muslims. One of their recent video and song called "Holy Mountain" is about the Armenian genocide thesis, which is a hot topic of debate not only among the world but among Armenians as well. The difference between normal Armenian activists who promote the Armenian genocide awareness, is that Holy Mountain doesn't simply target historical figures that are usually pointed at to blame for the supposed genocide, but also to Turkey's national heroes. Some Armenians even find this sort of attitude damaging to the credibility of the Armenian cause for recognition of the genocide.
However, only long-time fans and people who actually know about the issues--- System of A Down talks about---know the true motivation and agenda that System of A Down tries its best to hide from the mainstream media. They are in fact, racists (since they believe Armenians are superior than other ethnicities much like racists today)--however, since they compare themselves to Jewish Holocaust victims, by constantly talking about how their people suffered in World War I (like as if only Armenians suffered in WWI) at the hands of the "evil Turks". Although, the Ottoman government ordered many times the prevention of massacres and discouraged attacks on Armenians, locals sometimes did not listen; the Armenian rebel organizations that created rebellions and massacres against the Turks and Kurds in the region prompted retaliatory massacres by locals. Today, the debate rages on even though almost every expert on Ottoman History has conclude that while Armenians may have suffered the legal term of genocide cannot be applied, hence the Armenian Genocide has become a common misconception.
They feel no remorse for their hatred and prejudice. In fact, people show sympathy to Armenians when they start telling stories of the suffering of their people and when they constantly compare themselves to Holocaust survivors and victims (some even claim they have psychological trauma of their grandparents?).
It is like a person in court complaining of the crime of rape that a defendant supposedly committed, even though the defendant wasn't even in that city that day, but as the complainer continues to tell dreadful and gruesome details and then cries at the end, the jury becomes convinced that the defendant must have done something wrong.
In their documentary created by Armenian propagandists called "Screamers", the band members are interviewed and are portrayed as entertainers who also raise awareness on many genocides of the world. However, while they do allude to other genocides the main purpose of the film is to convince the world that the Armenian genocide theory is as indisputable as real genocides like the Holocaust. They make it seem like they are after a noble cause, while at the same time promoting hatred against the current Turkish government. They are portrayed like as if they are victims of the genocide themselves by claiming that their grandparents were all Armenian genocide survivors. Yet a deeper look into their history reveals that we can only take their word for it.
Armenian propagandists and propaganda websites like theforgotten.org have worked together with System of a Down to create a campaign of hate against the Turkish government and anyone else who refuses to acknowledge the Armenian genocide theory as being a "fact". They label anyone who disagrees with their viewpoint as "denialists" and they avoid any opportunity to attempt to prove their genocide, and instead divert the subject to horror stories about the "evil Turks". Just like the Nazis who oppressed people of different views, the Armenian propagandists aim to alienate the Turks as an evil race that should be carried off by trains for rejecting an accusation that has no proof. They compare their genocide theory which is a complex history of rebellion and independence to completely unrelated real genocides like the Holocaust and Darfur which are all unique in order to equate their genocide to it, and to reposition it as a "common knowledge" rather than a historical inaccuracy as many Western historians who are expert in Ottoman and Armenian history find it.
Many Turks were fans of System of a Down until they began the usual propaganda after they reached fame and fortune, thanks to Armenian national committees who bribed radio stations and companies to promote SOAD music. Now they lost millions of Turkish fans who enjoy the music of their Armenian brethren.
How obsessed should one be to alienate a whole ethnicity of their fans to be "perpetrators of genocide" when they forget about the hundreds of thousands of Turks the Armenian rebels killed during the 1880s--1918 many of which began before Armenians were even killed. These events are now referred to as the Armenian nationalist movement. If you think Armenians suffer every time someone does not accept their view that it was genocide, think about how much a Turk suffers every time someone accepts the genocide as "undeniable" and accepts Armenians as poor innocent victims while your relatives suffered greatly under Armenian rebel armies. Even Hrant Dink (Armenian newspaper editor who lived in Turkey who was murdered) asked the Armenian public to think in the shoes of Turks, and to understand that only Turks and Armenians can fix their relationship and that they shouldn't force politicians to get involved.
It is still alive today, spreading its tentacles of propaganda even infecting history books of other countries using political pressure and briberies. Think about it, if you ever read a history book that mentions the genocide, that's all it seems to do, simply briefly mention it, because the author has no knowledge of the subject and avoid details except the exaggerated "1.5 million dead Armenians" statement. System of a Down supports this kind of hatred towards Turks. Armenians should use historians to spread their message not politicians, musicians, and entertainers. The problem is no historians or academics support them on the issue except the very few who they bribed and the rest who want name recognition and use the Armenian community as a sling-shot to reach fame.

Why Armenians blame Turks for the "Armenian Genocide"

2009-05-17T21:39:00.002+10:00

The Armenians would have to finally admit after 94 years, that they indeed lost World War I to the Central Power, Ottoman forces. They would have to admit that the Allies really did betray them and left them without reinforcements and all their efforts to sabotage the Ottoman war effort would be gone. The Russian and British promise of a Greater Armenia was broken, they were left with a tiny country and they had no economy and many refugees that were starving in their land-locked nation.
Due to human nature, they had to find someone to blame. They tried to blame the Russians and the rest of the Allies, but it didn't help, no one listened, no one cared. However, when the ARF decided to blame the Ottoman Turks, enemies of the Turks, joined in the blame game, because they all had grudges against the Turks. The British had lost 2 significant battles to the Turks, and they lost the Turkish Independence war, giving the new nation Turkey its own land. The Greeks had lost all of Western Anatolia to the Turks during this war. The French lost all of South-Eastern Anatolia to the Turks. The Russians were creating the Soviet Empire and they were no longer interested in Anatolia, but they too felt betrayed by the Turks who accepted their gifts of weapons but did not convert to communism. Although the Allies had won World War I, in the Turkish independence war, they had lost, and they did not like the Turks.
The Armenian Genocide concept, started after this Turkish independence war. It didn't gain traction until the 1950s and 1960s through widespread propaganda by Armenian communities around the world. This is why the founder of Turkey, Ataturk, has never made any comments about the Armenian Genocide or the accusation of any genocide, because such accusations did not exist when he was alive.
Two Armenians in different times tried to convince me of the genocide. One of them, talked about how his grandmother's husband and children were killed. However, said that she was forced to walk all the way to Syria. As a skeptic, I asked why anyone would kill a family, and then let one of them escape scratch free to Syria, which he could not answer (the reason being, the story was fabricated). When I asked him why then there is no evidence that Talat Pasha, one of the leaders of the Ottoman Empire, had no telegrams ordering genocide, he replied "Why would Talat Pasha leave evidence of his own crimes?"
Another Armenian, tried to convince me by telling me how Talat Pasha wrote a "Black Book" (funny), detailing how he committed the genocide and references "Ottoman documents, not allowed to be seen in the Ottoman Archives today." That was funny because the previous Armenian was telling me Talat Pasha left no evidence of his crime and now he's written a whole black book detailing his crimes, very interesting, very improbable.
When I asked where I can have a copy of this black book, he could not produce it, said that it was sold in various places in different countries. Later, I found out, that he apparently, learned about this black book from some Armenian forum. Again, rumors.
This was similar to the one time where I read a Reader's Digest article hilariously entitled "Why I hate the Turks" -- The Armenian that wrote it, discussed how this very old Armenian described a story of how, he and his family and all of his fellow villagers were trapped in a church, and the "evil Turks" used wood to cover up the windows, and then poured kerosene everywhere and lit the church on fire. He told about how he cried with his family and told them they'd be together again in heaven. Then the story cut off--- huh?? -- How did he escape then? Apparently, that miraculous detail was classified. My suspicion is that he was an ARF member who was the one burning Muslim families in a Mosque, and just twisted the story and made himself the victim, I have no proof, but then again, he doesn't have any proof of his story either.
The writer wrote another story about when this old Armenian man, was only 13, "Turkish and Kurdish marauders" came and attacked his village on horseback. I said "Interesting, never knew Turks and Kurds ever worked together" (because they never did, it was more likely they were all Kurdish, but alas, they always want to put the blame on Turks rather than the real killers). The attackers apparently, killed many villagers, and stabbed the boy with a bayonet and then "stole his clothes" (a grown man stole a child's clothes, very interesting). Wait wait, I missed something, a 13 year old boy was stabbed with a bayonet back in 1915, and somehow survived such a wound in a time where there weren't even any hospitals in most villages? Lies.
This is the problem. We need to apply our logic when listening to these eye-witness stories. Even an American Consul in 1915, once said that "These Orientals, they can't help but exaggerate every story" about the Kurds and Armenians.
These stories to Armenians, are a mission, a nationalistic goal, to convince everyone of a genocide, because they cannot admit the losses they suffered in World War I, were the fault of the ARF, a terrorist organization that sided with the Allies and killed, Armenians, Kurds, and Turks, alike who opposed them.

If there was an "Armenian Genocide" why are the Armenians flocking to Turkey?

2009-05-17T20:34:00.005+10:00

State figures show there are about 80, 000 Armenian Population living in Istanbul alone. Many of them were born there, Their grand parents lived in Istanbul all their lives ... They have been there for generations. I ask you, if there was a genocide back in 1915... what are all those Armenians doing in Istanbul? I dont understand? We all know what constitutes the frivolous act of Genocide... so why are they there? How many illegal Armenians cross the border or enter into Turkey every year via other means? Do they do this becuase they want to live in a country who Allegedly tried to commit Genocide against their kin?
According to "The Economist" 40 000 Armenians have ilegally settled in Turkey in recent years. They claim Marina Martossian, is just one they caught up with, and has been living in Istanbul for the last 5 months is employed as a janitor, has friends in a similar situation. Marina claims she is very happy with her new life in Istanbul and she is earning circa 300 sterling a month. (Money she could not dream of in poverish Armenia!) When asked what she thought of her new Turkish employer.. "One of the most generous people I have ever met" is the answer.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan: We will send back 40,000 Armenians working illegally in Turkey, if necessary
[ 16 May 2009 10:55 ]

Warsaw - APA. “Turkey-Armenia relations are not the relations not connected with any factor. There are issues connected with the region. It is impossible to ignore them.The problem between Azerbaijan and Armenia has an impact on us, too,” Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said during his meeting with students in Warsaw, APA reports quoting Turkish media. He said the main demand of Turkey from Armenia was the withdrawal of troops from the occupied Azerbaijani territories, including Nagorno Karabakh.“We have not passed this decision, the UN passed the decision. Turkey closed the borders with Armenia because of the occupation. There is cause and consequence. The borders will be opened, when the consequence is eliminated,” he said.Erdogan mentioned that 40,000 Armenians were living and working illegally in Turkey.“Why have they come to our country? Because there is great poverty in Armenia. They are trying to earn their living in our country. We will send them back, if necessary, but we do not do it because of humaneness,” he said.

WILL THE DIASPORA ARMENIANS BE ALLOWED TO UNDERMINE THE THAW IN TURKISH-ARMENIAN RELATIONS?

2009-05-15T17:05:00.000+10:00

Below, please find a dear colleague letter issued by The Honorable Alcee L. Hastings in the U.S. Congress.

It is not a secret that there has been a rapprochement between Turkey and Armenia since President Gul visited last September the latter for a soccer match between the respective national teams upon invitation from Armenia’s president. This has generated a flurry of activities and joint meetings between the two nations, giving rise to expectations, perceived or real.

Though it is known that there can be little advance in this area without resolving the Karabagh issue where Armenia forcibly occupies 20% of Azerbaijan proper along with Karabagh, talks went on.

Armenia still covets neighbor’s territories in search of a utopia, the creation of greater Armenia: Western regions of Azerbaijan, eastern regions of Turkey, Javath region of Georgia, and others.

Armenian constitution still refers to eastern Turkey as western Armenia. Armenia also denies the legitimacy of international agreements signed in 1921 between Turkey and Armenia, Turkey and Soviet Union, and others determining the borders between Turkey and Armenia.

Another contentious issue is the Armenian insistence to characterize the 1915 events a genocide, totally ignoring Armenian propaganda, agitation, raids, terrorism, rebellions, territorial demands and treason, in that order, giving rise to 524,000 Muslims, mostly Turkish, which in turn triggered the TERESET (Temporary Resettlement order of May 27, 1915.)

In an editorial dated March 10, 2009 in The California Courier, a anti-Turkish, racist Armenian journal, Harut Sassounian wrote the following:

“… It is hard to believe that the Armenian government would invite the Turkish Foreign Minister to Armenia just one week before April 24. Mr. Babajan, a Genocide denialist and high-ranking official of a hostile country that is blockading Armenia, should never be welcomed in Yerevan, unless he intends to place a wreath at the Armenian Genocide Memorial Monument and offers an apology to the Armenian people!...”

If such hostile and racist attitudes frequently and openly displayed by Armenian diaspora opinion makers are any yard stick, or if same are allowed to influence the current rapprochement, you can kiss good bye the latter.

Let’s wait and see.

***

From: The Honorable Alcee L. Hastings

To: Colleagues

Re: The Frozen Relations Between Armenia and Turkey are now Showing Some Signs of Melting

March 9, 2009

Dear Colleague,

I am writing to bring to your attention a March 9th commentary in Newsweek, “The frozen relations between Armenia and Turkey are now showing some signs of melting,” by Grenville Byford, a regular contributor to the magazine and an affiliate of the Caspian Studies Program at Harvard University.

Mr. Byford outlines the way forward to improve Turkish-Armenian relations. Most importantly he recognizes that improved relations between Turkey and Armenia would further U.S. objectives in the Caucasus and enhance regional energy security.

I urge you to review the article and join with me in demonstrating strong Congressional support for continued Turkish-Armenian rapproachement.

Sincerely,

/s/ Alcee L. Hastings

Member of Congress

***

THE FROZEN RELATIONS BETWEEN ARMENIA AND TURKEY ARE NOW SHOWING SOME SIGNS OF MELTING

By Grenville Byford

NEWSWEEK

From the magazine issue dated Mar 9, 2009

http://www.newsweek.com/id/186973

It's almost April, so Washington is gearing up for another performance of the "Armenian Genocide Resolution Spectacular," a regular event since 1984. Here's the historical plotline: the Armenian-American lobby gets a few U.S. congressmen to sponsor a resolution recognizing the 1915 massacre of Armenians in what is now Eastern Turkey as a "genocide." Then other members of the House are induced to support it. (Members of the House may not be history buffs, but they understand the importance of stroking a powerful domestic lobby.) Next, the Turkish government says Turkey is too important to be insulted like this. In response, the American administration, recognizing that Turkey is indeed a critical NATO ally whose Incirlik Air Base is vital to the Iraq mission, starts twisting congressional arms to abandon the resolution. Offstage, the Israeli lobby, generally keen to boost Turkish-Israeli relations (though less so this year), w! orks against the resolution. Finally, the House leadership reluctantly shelves the whole thing and the curtain falls.

Before staging this year's performance, however, Congress should note that hitherto frozen relations between Armenia and Turkey are now showing signs of melting, and that this may be the first step toward reconciling the Turkish and Armenian peoples. In September, Turkish President Abdullah Gül attended a Turkey-Armenia football match in Yerevan at the invitation of Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan, who recently met with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Davos. The two foreign ministers, Turkey's Ali Babacan and Armenia's Eduard Nalbandian have also been meeting. Both have made optimistic noises.

Progress has been possible because the Armenians have focused on the concrete issue of opening the Armenian-Turkish border—a vital matter to them since none of their other neighbors (Azerbaijan, Georgia and Iran) can offer a viable trade route to the West. Both sides have wisely avoided the genocide dispute, surely recognizing it will have to be dealt with eventually but that developing economic ties will make it easier to do so. Lingering in the background, however, is the Armenian diaspora's passionate insistence that there was a genocide—and its mirror image in the fury of the Turkish people denying it. Right or wrong is not the point. No Turkish government could contemplate opening the Armenian border with this issue front and center, and Congress should recognize that a genocide resolution would put it there.

In all probability, Turkey and Armenia can only resolve the genocide dispute if they recognize that "was it a genocide?" may be the ultimate question, but it is not the most important one today. To those aiming for reconciliation, two questions outrank it: what common facts can Turks and Armenians be brought to accept, and is the common ground sufficient for both sides to start binding up the wounds? To this end, Erdogan's proposal to establish a joint historical commission should be pursued. Though Armenia has rejected the idea so far—largely because it is winning its argument on the world stage—the government has softened its stance recently. If the aim is reconciliation, persuading the Turks to abandon the blanket denial they are taught as schoolchildren is what counts.

Progress is not as implausible as it sounds. In the early days of the Republic, Kemal Atatürk, who was not personally implicated, described the Armenian massacres as "shameful acts." No ex-Ottoman officials were investigated, however, as Turkey needed the newly minted heroes of its War of Independence to have no stain on their characters. Today, Erdogan will accept an investigation. In return, Armenia must accept a reciprocal investigation into the Ottoman Armenians, who fought with the sultan's Russian enemy, and their responsibility for massacres of Turks and Kurds. Weaving together these two violently opposed historical perspectives will take time and patience. As important as the final answer, however, is the development of empathy across the divide.

Congress can help keep the path to reconciliation open if it is willing to deny the Armenian-American lobby the instant gratification of a genocide resolution. Surely doing so would be far better than repeating the exercises of the last 25 years over and over again until a resolution finally passes and all the House's leverage over Turkey evaporates, along with most of the good will in the Turkish-American alliance, and maybe even the alliance itself. For its part, the Armenian diaspora might even support reconciliation if only as its second choice.

Finally, good relations between Turkey and Armenia would further U.S. objectives in the Caucasus. The proposed hydrocarbon corridor through the Caucasus from Central Asia looks much more secure in the context of Turkish-Armenian friendship, and it might give Armenia the confidence to break with the status quo in the longstanding Nagorno-Karabakh dispute with neighboring Azerbaijan. C! ongress and others should recognize that this year holds real promise for the beginning of reconciliation between the Turkish and Armenian peoples. If nothing comes of it, Congress can always return to a resolution.

Byford writes frequently on Turkish affairs and is a regular contributor to Newsweek.com.

Turkish affairs and is a regular contributor to Newsweek.com.

CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY MEMBER OFFERS CONDOLENCE TO AZERBAIJAN ON KHOJALI GENOCIDE

2009-05-15T16:58:00.000+10:00

Azerbaijan, Baku, 24 February 2009

Trend News, E. Rustamov

California State Assembly member Felipe Fuentes offered his condolences to the Azerbaijani people on the occasion of the 17th anniversary of the Khojali Genocide.

Armenian troops committed genocide in the Khojali settlement in Nagorno-Karabakh on Feb. 26, 1992. Within hours after the troops entered Khojali, over 600 unarmed Azerbaijani citizens were killed. Among them were 106 women and 83 children. About 1,000 people were disabled by shots; 8 families were fully destroyed. A total of 25 children lost both of their parents and 130 children lost one of them. About 1,275 people were taken prisoner. Around 150 people went missing.

Fuentes sent a letter to Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev offering his condolences on the tragic events, Azerbaijani Consul in Los Angeles Elin Suleymanov told Trend News in a telephone conversation on Feb. 24.

"This is a very important event. Because there are many pro-Armenian officials in California. People around the world are gradually coming to understand that Armenians provide false information about the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict," Suleymanov said.

The conflict between the two South Caucasus countries began in 1988 when Armenia made territorial claims against Azerbaijan. Armenian armed forces have occupied 20 percent of Azerbaijan since 1992, including the Nagorno-Karabakh region and 7 surrounding districts. Azerbaijan and Armenia signed a ceasefire agreement in 1994. The co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group – Russia, France, and the U.S. – are currently holding the peace negotiations.

A grave crime was committed against innocent Azerbaijani civilians by the Armenian army, on February 26, 1992, which became and remains the largest massacre of modern times in the region of South Caucasus and Caspian Basin. On that day, the military units of Armenia, seized the town of Khojaly, in the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan, and committed a massacre, which was the culmination of the Armenian aggression and occupation of Azerbaijan. On that day, the Armenian government's efforts to rid Nagorno-Karabakh of its ethnically Azerbaijani population, resulted in almost 2,000 of innocent civilians, mostly women, children, and elderly, being killed, wounded, or taken hostage by the Armenian military forces.

The crime against peaceful residents of Khojaly was condemned worldwide, including by the U.S. government, and broadly covered by national newspapers and magazines. Some of the American and Western journalists and groups who eye-witnessed or extensively covered the Khojaly massacre, were: Hugh Pope, Thomas Goltz, Tom DeWaal, and Human Rights Watch. Congressman Dan Burton (R-IN), a Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, had the following appeal: "This is not the ringing condemnation that the survivors of Khojaly deserve, but it is an important first step by an international community that has too long been silent on this issue. Congress should take the next step and I hope my colleagues will join me in standing with Azerbaijanis as they commemorate the tragedy of Khojaly. The world should know and remember."

February 26, 2009, is a Memorial Day for the people of Azerbaijan. All Azerbaijani people will forever remember where they were on February 26, 1992, like all Americans will forever remember where they were on the tragic morning of September 11, 2001. Having experienced terror firsthand, Azerbaijan has become a staunch ally of the United States in the War on Terror and a member of the Coalition, with Azerbaijani battle-ready peacekeepers serving side-by-side with Americans in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq.

In the wake of the 17th year anniversary of Khojali massacre, all Azerbaijani-Americans join in calling upon Congress to properly recognize and commemorate this tragedy (on the floor of the Congress, in the Congressional Record, and by attending a vigil), and to pressure the Armenian government to accept its responsibility for this massacre and withdraw its troops from the occupied regions of Azerbaijan.

Click here for more on the Khojaly Massacre.

A TIMELESS, PEERLESS ADDRESS BY MCCARTHY

2009-05-15T16:41:00.000+10:00

THE HISTORY

OTTOMAN PROVINCES

Conflict between the Turks and the Armenians was not inevitable. The two peoples should have been friends. When World War I began, the Armenians and Turks had been living together for 800 years. The Armenians of Anatolia and Europe had been Ottoman subjects for nearly 400 years. There were problems during those centuries—problems caused especially by those who attacked and ultimately destroyed the Ottoman Empire. Everyone in the Empire suffered, but it was the Turks and other Muslims who suffered most. Judged by all economic and social standards, the Armenians did well under Ottoman rule. By the late nineteenth century, in every Ottoman province the Armenians were better educated and richer than the Muslims. Armenians worked hard, it is true, but their comparative riches were largely due to European and American influence and Ottoman tolerance. European merchants made Ottoman Christians their agents. European merchants gave them their business. European consuls intervened in their behalf. The Armenians benefited from the education given to them, and not to the Turks, by American missionaries.

While the lives of the Armenians as a group were improving, Muslims were living through some of the worst suffering experienced in modern history: In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Bosnians were massacred by Serbs, Russians killed and exiled the Circassians, Abkhazians, and Laz, and Turks were killed and expelled from their homelands by Russians, Bulgarians, Greeks, and Serbs. Yet, in the midst of all this Muslim suffering, the political situation of the Ottoman Armenians constantly improved. First, equal rights for Christians and Jews were guaranteed in law. Equal rights increasingly became a reality, as well. Christians took high places in the government. They became ambassadors, treasury officials, even foreign ministers. In many ways, in fact, the rights of Christians became greater than those of the Muslims, because powerful European states intervened in their behalf. The Europeans demanded and received special treatment for Christians. Muslims had no such advantages.

That was the environment in which Armenians revolted against the Ottoman Empire--hundreds of years of peace, economic superiority, constantly improving political conditions. This would not seem to be a cause for revolution. Yet the nineteenth century saw the beginning of an Armenian revolution that was to culminate in disaster for both. What drove the Armenians and the Turks apart?

RUSSIAN EXPANSION

THE RUSSIANS

First and foremost, there were the Russians. Regions where Christians and Muslims had been living together in relative peace were torn asunder when the Russians invaded the Caucasian Muslim lands. Most Armenians were probably neutral, but a significant number took the side of the Russians. Armenians served as spies and even provided armed units of soldiers for the Russians. There were significant benefits for the Armenians: The Russians took Erivan Province, today’s Armenian Republic, in 1828. They expelled Turks and gave the Turkish land, tax-free, to Armenians. The Russians knew that if the Turks remained they would always be the enemies of their conquerors, so they replaced them with a friendly population—the Armenians.

The forced exile of the Muslims continued until the first days of World War I: 300,000 Crimean Tatars, 1.2 million Circassians and Abkhazians, 40,000 Laz, 70,000 Turks. The Russians invaded Anatolia in the war of 1877-78, and once again many Armenians joined the Russian side. They served as scouts and spies. Armenians became the “police” in occupied territories, persecuting the Turkish population. The peace treaty of 1878 gave much of Northeastern Anatolia back to the Ottomans. The Armenians who had helped the Russians feared revenge and fled, although the Turks did not, in fact, take any revenge.

Both the Muslims and the Armenians remembered the events of the Russian invasions. Armenians could see that they would be more likely to prosper if the Russians won. Free land, even if stolen from Muslims, was a powerful incentive for Armenian farmers. Rebellious Ottoman Armenians had found a powerful protector in Russia. Rebels also had a base in Russia from which they could organize rebellion and smuggle men and guns into the Ottoman Empire.

The Muslims knew that if the Russians were guardian angels for the Armenians, they were devils for the Muslims. They could see that when the Russians triumphed Muslims lost their lands and their lives. They knew what would happen if the Russians came again. And they could see that Armenians had been on the side of the Russians. Thus did 800 years of peaceful coexistence disintegrate.

THE ARMENIAN REVOLUTİONARİES

It was not until Russian Armenians brought their nationalist ideology to Eastern Anatolia that Armenian rebellion became a real threat to the Ottoman State.

Although there were others, two parties of nationalists were to lead the Armenian rebellion. The first, the Hunchakian Revolutionary Party, called the Hunchaks, was founded in Geneva, Switzerland in 1887 by Armenians from Russia. The second, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, called the Dashnaks, was founded in the Russian Empire, in Tiflis, in 1890. Both were Marxist. Their methods were violent. The Hunchak and Dashnak Party Manifestos called for armed revolution in the Ottoman Empire.

Terrorism, including the murder of both Ottoman officials and Armenians who opposed them, was part of the party platforms. Although they were Marxists, both groups made nationalism the most important part of their philosophy of revolution. In this they were much like the nationalist revolutionaries of Bulgaria, Macedonia, or Greece.

POPULATION

Unlike the Greek or Bulgarian revolutionaries, the Armenians had a demographic problem. In Greece, the majority of the population was Greek. In Bulgaria, the majority was Bulgarian. In the lands claimed by the Armenians, however, Armenians were a fairly small minority. The region that was called “Ottoman Armenia,” the “Six Vilâyets” of Sivas, Mamüretülaziz, Diyarbakır, Bitlis, Van, and Erzurum, was only 17% Armenian. It was 78% Muslim. This was to have important consequences for the Armenian revolution, because the only way to create the “Armenia” the revolutionaries wanted was to expel the Muslims who lived there.

Anyone who doubts the intentions of the revolutionaries need only look at their record—actions such as the murder of one governor of Van Province and attempted murder of another, murders of police chiefs and other officials, the attempted assassination of sultan Abdülhamid II. These were radical nationalists who were at war with the Ottoman State.

SMUGGLING ROUTES

Beginning in earnest in the 1890s, the Russian Armenian revolutionaries began to infiltrate the Ottoman Empire. They smuggled rifles, cartridges, dynamite, and fighters across ill-defended borders into Van, Erzurum, and Bitlis provinces along the routes shown on the map. The Ottomans were poorly equipped to fight them. The problem was financial. The Ottomans still suffered from their terrible losses in the 1877-78 War with Russia. They suffered from the Capitulations, from debts, and from predatory European bankers. It must also be admitted that the Ottomans were poor economists. The result was a lack of money to support the new police and military units that were needed to fight the revolutionaries and restrain Kurdish tribes. The number of soldiers and gendarmes in the East was never sufficient, and they were often not paid for months at a time. It was impossible to defeat the rebels with so few resources.

By far the most successful of the revolutionaries were the Dashnaks. Dashnaks from Russia were the leaders of rebellion. They were the organizers and the “enforcers” who turned the Armenians of Anatolia into rebel soldiers. This was not an easy task, because at first most of the Ottoman Armenians had no wish to rebel. They preferred peace and security and disapproved of the atheistic, socialist revolutionaries. A feeling of separatism and even superiority among the Armenians helped the revolutionaries, but the main weapon that turned the Armenians of the East into rebels was terrorism. The prime cause that united the Armenians against their government was fear.

Before the Armenians could be turned into rebels their traditional loyalty to their Church and their Community leaders had to be destroyed. The rebels realized that Armenians felt the most love and respect for their Church, not for the revolution. The Dashnak Party therefore resolved to take effective control of the Church. Most clergymen, however, did not support the atheistic Dashnaks. The Church could only be taken over through violence.

What happened to Armenian clergymen who opposed the Dashnaks? Priests were killed in villages and cities. Their crime? They were loyal Ottoman subjects. The Armenian bishop of Van, Boghos, was murdered by the revolutionaries in his cathedral on Christmas Eve. His crime? He was a loyal Ottoman subject. The Dashnaks attempted to kill the Armenian Patriarch in Istanbul, Malachia Ormanian. His crime? He opposed the revolutionaries. Arsen, the priest in charge of the important Akhtamar Church in Van, the religious center of the Armenians in the Ottoman East, was murdered by Ishkhan, one of the leaders of Van’s Dashnaks. His crime? He opposed the Dashnaks. But there was an additional reason to kill him: The Dashnaks wanted to take over the Armenian education system that was based in Akhtamar. After Father Arsen was killed, the Dashnak Aram Manukian, a man without known religious belief, became head of the Armenian schools. He closed down religious education and began revolutionary education. So-called “religious teachers” spread throughout Van Province, teaching revolution, not religion.

The loyalty of the rebels was to the revolution. Not even their church was safe from their attacks.

The other group that most threatened the power of the rebels was the Armenian merchant class. As a group they favored the government. They wanted peace and order, so that they could do business. They were the traditional secular leaders of the Armenian Community; the rebels wanted to lead the Community themselves, so the merchants had to be silenced. Those who most publicly supported their government, such as Bedros Kapamacıyan, the Mayor of Van, and Armarak, the kaymakam of Gevaş, were assassinated, as were numerous Armenian policemen, at least one Armenian Chief of Police, and Armenian advisors to the Government. Only a very brave Armenian would take the side of the Government.

The Dashnaks looked on the merchants as a source of money. The merchants would never donate to the revolution willingly. They had to be forced to do so. The first reported case of extortion from merchants came in Erzurum in 1895, soon after the Dashnak Party became active in the Ottoman domains. The campaign began in earnest in 1901. In that year the extortion of funds through threats and assassination became the official policy of the Dashnak Party. The campaign was carried out in Russia and the Balkans, as well as in the Ottoman Empire. One prominent Armenian merchant, Isahag Zhamharian, refused to pay and reported the Dashnaks to the police. He was assassinated in the courtyard of an Armenian church. Others who did not pay were also killed. The rest of the merchants then paid.

From 1902 to 1904 the main extortion campaign brought in the equivalent, in today’s money, of more than eight million dollars. And this was only the amount collected by the central Dashnak committee in a short period, almost all from outside the Ottoman Empire. It does not include the amounts extorted from 1895 to 1914 in many areas of the Ottoman Empire. Soon the merchants were paying their taxes to the revolutionaries, not to the government. When the government in Van demanded that the merchants pay their taxes, the merchants pleaded that they had indeed paid taxes, but to the revolutionaries. They said they could only pay the government if the government protected them from the rebels. The same condition prevailed all over Eastern Anatolia, in İzmir, in Cilicia, and elsewhere.

The Armenian common people did not escape the extortions of the rebels. They were forced to feed and house the revolutionaries. British Consul Elliot reported, “They [the Dashnaks] quarter themselves on Christian villages, live on the best to be had, exact contributions to their funds, and make the younger women and girls submit to their will. Those who incur their displeasure are murdered in cold blood.”[1]

The greatest cost to villagers was the forced purchase of guns. The villagers were turned into rebel “soldiers,” whether they wished to be or not. If they were to fight the Turks, they needed weapons. The revolutionaries smuggled weapons from Russia and forced the Armenian villagers to buy. The methods used to force the villagers to buy were very effective, as British consul Seele reported:

An agent arrived in a certain village and informed a villager that he must buy a Mauser pistol. The villager replied that he had no money, whereupon the agent retorted, “You must sell your oxen.” The wretched villager then proceeded to explain that the sowing season would soon arrive and asked how a Mauser pistol would enable him to plough his fields. For reply the agent proceeded to destroy the poor man’s oxen with his pistol and then departed.”[2]

The rebels had more than military organization in mind when they forced the villagers to buy weapons. The villagers were charged double the normal cost of the weapons. A rifle worth £5 was sold for £10. Both the rebel organization and the rebels themselves did very well from the sales.

It was the peasants who suffered most. The most basic policy of the revolutionaries was a callous exploitation of the lives of Armenians: Kurdish tribes and their villages were attacked by the rebels, knowing that the tribes would take their revenge on innocent Armenian villagers. The revolutionaries escaped and left their fellow Armenians to die.

Even Europeans, friends of the Armenians, could see that the revolutionaries were the cause of the curse that had descended on Eastern Anatolia. Consul Seele wrote in 1911:

From what I have seen in the parts of the country I have visited I have become more convinced than ever of the baneful influence of the Taschnak Committee on the welfare of the Armenians and generally of this part of Turkey. It is impossible to overlook the fact in that in all places where there are no Armenian political organisations or where such organisations are imperfectly developed, the Armenians live in comparative harmony with the Turks and Kurds.[3]

The Englishman rightly saw that the cause of the unrest in the East was the Armenian revolutionaries. If there were no Dashnaks, the Turks and Armenians would have lived together in peace. The Ottoman Government knew this was true. Why did the Government tolerate so much from the rebels? Why did the Government not stamp them out?

The Ottoman failure to effectively oppose the rebels is indeed hard to understand. Imagine a country in which a number of radical revolutionaries, most of them from a foreign country, organize a rebellion. They infiltrate fighters and guns from this foreign country to lead their attack on the government and the people. The radicals openly state they wish to create a state in which the majority of the population will be excluded from rule. They murder and terrorize their own people to force them to join their cause. They murder government officials. They deliberately murder members of the majority in the hope that reprisals will lead other nations to invade. They store thousands of weapons in preparation for revolt. They revolt, are defeated, then revolt again and again. The country that gains most from the rebels’ actions is the country they come from—the country in which they organize, the country in which they have their home base.

What government would tolerate this? Has there ever been a country that would not jail, and probably hang such rebels? Has there ever been a country that would allow them to continue to operate openly? Yes. That country was the Ottoman Empire. In the Ottoman Empire the Armenian rebels operated openly, stored thousands of weapons, murdered Muslims and Armenians, killed governors and other officials, and rebelled again and again. The only one to truly benefit from their actions was Russia—the country in which they organized, the country their leaders came from.

How could this happen? The Ottomans were not cowards. The Ottomans were not fools. They knew what the rebels were doing. The Ottomans tolerated the Armenian revolutionaries because the Ottomans had no choice.

It must be remembered that the very existence of the Ottoman Empire was at stake. Serbia, Bosnia, Romania, Greece, and Bulgaria had already been lost because of European intervention. The Europeans had almost divided the Empire in 1878 and had planned to do so in the 1890s. Only fear that Russia would become too powerful had stopped them. Public opinion in Britain and France could easily change that. Indeed, that was exactly what the Armenian revolutionaries wanted. They wanted the Ottomans to jail and execute Armenian rebels. European newspapers would report that as government persecution of innocent Armenians. They wanted the government to prosecute Armenian revolutionary parties. The European newspapers would report that as denying political freedom to the Armenians. They wanted Muslims to react to Armenian provocations and attacks by killing Armenians. The European newspapers would report only the dead Armenians, not the dead Muslims. Public opinion would force the British and French to cooperate with the Russians and dismember the Empire.

Many politicians in Europe, men such as Gladstone, were as prejudiced against the Turks as were the press and the public. They were simply waiting for the right opportunity to destroy the Ottoman Empire.

The result was that it was nearly impossible for the Ottomans to properly punish the rebels. The Europeans demanded that the Ottomans accept actions from the revolutionaries that the Europeans themselves would never tolerate in their own possessions. When the Dashnaks occupied the Ottoman Bank, Europeans arranged their release. European ambassadors forced the Ottomans to grant amnesty to rebels in Zeytun. They arranged pardons for those who attempted to kill sultan Abdülhamid II. The Russian consuls would not let Ottoman courts try Dashnak rebels, because they were Russian subjects. Many rebels who were successfully tried and convicted were released, because the Europeans demanded and received pardons for them, in essence threatening the sultan if he did not release rebels and murderers. One Russian consul in Van even publicly trained Armenian rebels, acting personally as their weapons instructor.

All the Ottomans could do was try to keep things as quiet as possible. That meant not punishing the rebels as they should have been punished. One can only pity the Ottomans. They knew that if they governed properly the result would be the death of their state.

WORLD WAR I

There were two factors that caused the Ottoman loss in the East in World War I:

The first was Enver Paşa’s disastrous attack at Sarıkamış. Enver’s attack on Russia in December of 1914 was in every way a disaster. Of the 95,000 Turkish troops who attacked Russia, 75,000 died. The second factor, the one that concerns us here, was Armenian Revolt.

DESERTION ZONE

As World War I threatened and the Ottoman Army mobilized, Armenians who should have served their country instead took the side of the Russians. The Ottoman Army reported: “From Armenians with conscription obligations those in towns and villages East of the Hopa-Erzurum-Hınıs-Van line did not comply with the call to enlist but have proceeded East to the border to join the organization in Russia.” The effect of this is obvious: If the young Armenian males of the “zone of desertion” had served in the Army, they would have provided more than 50,000 troops. If they had served, there might never have been a Sarıkamış defeat.

The Armenians from Hopa to Erzurum to Hınıs to Van were not the only Armenians who did not serve. The 10s of thousands of Armenians of Sivas who formed chette bands did not serve. The rebels in Zeytun and elsewhere in Cilicia did not serve. The Armenians who fled to the Greek islands or to Egypt or Cyprus did not serve. More precisely, many of these Armenian young men did serve, but they served in the armies of the Ottomans’ enemies. They did not protect their homeland, they attacked it.

In Eastern Anatolia, Armenians formed bands to fight a guerilla war against their government. Others fled only to return with the Russian Army, serving as scouts and advance units for the Russian invaders. It was those who stayed behind who were the greatest danger to the Ottoman war effort and the greatest danger to the lives of the Muslims of Eastern Anatolia.

It has often been alleged by Armenian nationalists that the Ottoman order to deport Armenians was not caused by Armenian rebellion. As evidence, they note the fact that the law of deportation was published in May of 1915, at approximately the same time that the Armenians seized the City of Van. According to this logic, the Ottomans must have planned the deportation some time before that date, so the rebellion could not have been the cause of the deportations. It is true that the Ottomans began to consider the possibility of deportation a few months before May, 1915. What is not true is that May, 1915 was the start of the Armenian rebellion. It had started long before.

European observers knew long before 1914 that Armenians would join the Russian side in event of war. As early as 1908, British consul Dickson had reported:

The Armenian revolutionaries in Van and Salmas [in Iran] have been informed by their Committee in Tiflis that in the event of war they will side with the Russians against Turkey. Unaided by the Russians, they could mobilize about 3,500 armed sharpshooters to harass the Turks about the frontier, and their lines of communication.[4]

British diplomatic sources reported that in preparation for war, in 1913, the Armenian revolutionary groups met and agreed to coordinate their efforts against the Ottomans. The British reported that this alliance was the result of meetings with “the Russian authorities.” The Dashnak leader (and member of the Ottoman Parliament) Vramian had gone to Tiflis to confer with the Russian authorities. The British also reported that “[The Armenians] have thrown off any pretence of loyalty they may once have shown, and openly welcome the prospect of a Russian occupation of the Armenian Vilayets.” [5]

Even Dashnak leaders admitted the Dashnaks were Russian allies. The Dashnak Hovhannes Katchaznouni, prime minister of the Armenian Republic, stated that the party plan at the beginning of the war was to ally with the Russians.

Since 1910 the revolutionaries had distributed a pamphlet throughout Eastern Anatolia. It demonstrated how Armenian villages were to be organized into regional commands, how Muslim villages were to be attacked, and specifics of guerilla warfare.

Before the war began, Ottoman Army Intelligence reported on Dashnak plans: They would declare their loyalty to the Ottoman State, but increase their arming of their supporters. If war was declared, Armenian soldiers would desert to the Russian Army with their arms. The Armenians would do nothing if the Ottomans began to defeat the Russians. If the Ottomans began to retreat, the Armenians would form armed guerilla bands and attack according to plan. The Ottoman intelligence reports were correct, for that is exactly what happened.

WAR

The Russians gave 2.4 million rubles to the Dashnaks to arm the Ottoman Armenians. They began distributing weapons to Armenians in the Caucasus and Iran in September of 1914. In that month, seven months before the Deportations were ordered, Armenian attacks on Ottoman soldiers and officials began. Deserters from the Ottoman Army at first formed into what officials called “bandit gangs.” They attacked conscription officers, tax collectors, gendarmerie outposts, and Muslims on the roads. By December a general revolt had erupted in Van Province. Roads and telegraph lines were cut, gendarmerie outposts attacked, and Muslim villages burned, their inhabitants killed. The revolt soon grew: in December, near the Kotur Pass, which the Ottomans had to hold to defend against Russian invasion from Iran, a large Armenian battle group defeated units of the Ottoman army, killing 400 Ottoman soldiers and forcing the army to retreat to Saray. The attacks were not only in Van: The governor of Erzurum, Tahsin, cabled that he could not hold off the Armenian attacks that were breaking out through the province; soldiers would have to be sent from the front.

By February, reports of attacks began to come in from all over the East—a two-hour battle near Muş, an eight-hour battle in Abaak, 1,000 Armenians attacking near Timar, Armenian chettes raiding in Sivas, Erzurum, Adana, Diyarbakır, Bitlis, and Van provinces. Telegraph lines to the front and from Ottoman cities to the West were cut, repaired, and cut again many times. Supply caravans to the army were attacked, as were columns of wounded soldiers. Units of gendarmerie and soldiers sent to reconnect telegraph lines or protect supply columns themselves came under attack. As an example of the enormity of the problem, in the middle of April an entire division of gendarmerie troops was ordered from Hakkâri to Çatak to battle a major uprising there, but the division could not fight through the Armenian defenses.

Once careful preparations had been made, Armenians revolted in the City of Van. On April 20, well-armed Armenian units, many wearing military uniforms, took the city and drove Ottoman forces into the citadel. The rebels burned down most of the city, some buildings also being destroyed by the two canons the Ottomans had in the citadel. Troops were sent from the Erzurum and Iranian Fronts, but they were unable to relieve the city. The Russians and Armenians were advancing from the north and the southwest. On May 17 the Ottomans evacuated the citadel. Soldiers and civilians fought their way southwest around Lake Van. Some took to boats on the Lake, but nearly half of these were killed by rebels firing from the shore or when their boats ran aground. Some of the Muslims of Van survived at least for a while, put in the care of American missionaries. Most who did not escape were killed. Villagers were either killed in their homes or collected from surrounding areas and sent into the great massacre at Zeve.

The ensuing suffering of the Muslims and Armenians is well known. It was a history of bloody warfare between peoples in which all died in great numbers. When the Ottomans retook much of the East, the Armenian population fled to Russia. There they starved and died of disease. When the Russians retook Van and Bitlis Provinces, they did not allow the Armenians to return, leaving them to starve in the North. The Russians wanted the land for themselves. It is also well known that Armenians who remained, those in Erzurum Province, massacred Muslims in great numbers at the end of the war.

My purpose here is not to retell that history. I wish to demonstrate that the Ottomans were right in considering the Armenians to be their enemies, if further proof is needed. The map shows proof that the Armenian rebels in fact were agents of Russia.

The Armenians of the Ottoman East rebelled in exactly those areas that were most important to the Russians. The benefit of the rebellion in Van City, the center of Ottoman Administration in the Southeast is obvious. The other sites of rebellion were in reality more important: Rebellion in Erzurum Province cut the Ottoman Army off from supplies and communications. The rebellion was directly in the path of the Russian advance from the North. The Armenians rebelled in the Saray and Başkale regions, at the two major passes that the Russians were to use in their invasion from Iran. The Armenians rebelled in the region near Çatak, at the mountain passes needed for the Ottomans to bring up troops to the Iran frontier, the passes needed for the Ottoman retreat. The Armenians rebelled in great numbers in Sivas Province and in Şebinkarahisar.

This would seem to be an odd place for a revolt, a region where the Armenians were outnumbered by the Muslims ten to one, but Sivas was tactically important. It was the railhead from which all supplies and men passed to the Front, basically along one road. It was the prefect site for guerilla action to harass Ottoman supply lines. The Armenians also rebelled in Cilicia, the intended site for a British invasion that would have cut the rail links to the South. It was not the fault of the rebels that the British preferred to attempt the madness at Gallipoli instead of an attack in Cilicia that would surely have been more successful.

All these regions were the very spots a military planner would choose to most damage the Ottoman war effort. It cannot be an accident that they were also the spots chosen by the rebels for their revolt. Anyone can see that the revolts were a disaster for the Army. The disaster was compounded by the fact that the Ottomans were forced to withdraw whole divisions from the Front to battle the Armenian rebels. The war might have been much different if these divisions had been able to fight the Russians, not the rebels. I agree with Field-Marshall Pomiankowski, who was the only real European historian of World War I in the Ottoman Empire, that the Armenian rebellion was the key to the Ottoman defeat in the East.

Only after seven months of Armenian rebellion did the Ottomans order the deportation of Armenians (May 26-30, 1915).

THE OTTOMAN RECORD

How do we know that this analysis is true? It is, after all, very different than what is usually called the history of the Armenians. We know it is true because it is the product of reasoned historical analysis, not ideology.

To understand this, we must consider the difference between history and ideology, the difference between scientific analysis and nationalist belief, the difference between the proper historian and the ideologue. To the historian what matters is the attempt to find the objective truth. To the nationalist ideologue what matters is the triumph of his cause. A proper historian first searches for evidence, then make up his mind. An ideologue first makes up his mind, then looks for evidence.

A historian looks for historical context. In particular, he judges the reliability of witnesses. He judges if those who gave reports had reason to lie. An ideologue takes evidence wherever he can find it, and may invent the evidence he cannot find. He does not look too closely at the evidence, perhaps because he is afraid of what he will find. As an example, the ideologues contend that the trials of Ottoman leaders after World War I prove that the Turks were guilty of genocide. They do not mention that the so-called trials reached their verdicts when the British controlled Istanbul. They do not mention that the courts were in the hands of the Quisling Damad Ferid Paşa government, which had a long record of lying about its enemies, the Committee of Union and Progress. They do not mention that Damad Ferid would do anything to please the British and keep his job. They do not mention that the British, more honest than their lackeys, admitted that they could not find evidence of any “genocide.” They do not mention that the defendants were not represented by their own lawyers. They do not mention that crimes against Armenians were only a small part of a long list of so-called crimes, everything the judges could invent. The ideologues do not mention that the courts should best be compared to those convened by Josef Stalin. The ideologues do not mention this evidence.

A historian first discovers what actually happened, then tries to explain the reasons. An ideologue forgets the process of discovery. He assumes that what he believes is correct, then constructs a theory to explain it. The work of Dr. Taner Akçam is an example of this. He first accepts completely the beliefs of the Armenian nationalists. He then constructs an elaborate sociological theory, claiming that genocide was the result of Turkish history and the Turkish character. This sort of analysis is like a house built on a foundation of sand. The house looks good, but the first strong wind knocks it down. In this case, the strong wind that destroys the theory is the force of the truth.

A historian knows that one has to look back in history, sometimes far back in history, to find the causes of events. An ideologue does not bother. Again, he may be afraid of what he will find. Reading the Armenian Nationalists one would assume that the Armenian Question began in 1894. Very seldom does one find in their work mention of Armenian alliances with the Russians against the Turks stretching back to the eighteenth century. One never finds recognition that it was the Russians and the Armenians themselves who began to dissolve 700 years of peace between Turks and Armenians. These are important matters for the historian, but they hurt the cause of the ideologue.

The historian studies. The ideologue wages a political war. From the start the Armenian Question has been a political campaign. Materials that have been used to write the long-accepted and false history of the Armenian Question were written as political documents. They were written for political effect. Whether they were articles in the Dashnak newspaper or false documents produced by the British Propaganda Office, they were propaganda, not sources of accurate history. Historians have examined and rejected all these so-called “historical sources.” Yet the same falsehoods continually appear as “proof” that there was an Armenian Genocide. The lies have existed for so long, the lies have been repeated so many times, that those who do not know the real history assume that the lies are true.

It is not only Americans and Europeans who have been fooled. Recently I read a two-volume work written by a Turkish scholar. Much of what appears on the Armenians is absolute nonsense. For example, in 1908 in the City of Van, Ottoman officials discovered an arsenal of Dashnak weapons--2,000 guns, hundreds of thousands of cartridges, 5,000 bombs--all in preparation for an Armenian revolt. Armenians rebels fought Ottoman troops briefly, then fled. This event is described in all the diplomatic literature and books on Van. The author, however, says what occurred was a revolt of 1,000 Turks (!) against the government, and mentions no rebel weapons. How could such a mistake be made? It was because of the source. The author took all information from the Dashnak Party newspaper!

We must affirm a basic principle: Those who take propaganda as their source themselves write propaganda, not history.

Too many scholars, Turks and non-Turks alike, have accepted the lies of groups like the Dashnak Party and not even looked at the internal reports of the Ottomans. Scholars have the right to make mistakes, but scholars also have a duty to look at all sources of information before they write. It is wrong to base writings on political propaganda and to ignore the honest reports of the Ottomans. The first place to look for Ottoman history should be the records of the Ottomans.

Why rely on Ottoman archival accounts to write history? Because they are the sort of solid data that is the basis of all good history. The Ottomans did not write propaganda for today’s media. The reports of Ottoman soldiers and officials were not political documents or public relations exercises. They were secret internal reports in which responsible men relayed what they believed to be true to their government. They might sometimes have been mistaken, but they were never liars. There is no record of deliberate deception in Ottoman documents. Compare this to the dismal history of Armenian Nationalist deceptions: fake statistics on population, fake statements attributed to Mustafa Kemal, fake telegrams of Talat Paşa, fake reports in a Blue Book, misuse of court records and, worst of all, no mention of Turks who were killed by Armenians.

I have been asked to make suggestions as to what Turks can do to correct false history. I hesitate to do so, because Turks already know what has to be done--opposing the lies that are told about their ancestors. You are already doing it. It is a hard fight: The prejudices about Turks stand in your way, and those who oppose you are politically strong, but the truth is on your side. I am very pleased that the Turks, and the Turkish Parliament, are uniting to oppose the lies told about the Turks. The recent agreement between Prime Minister Erdoğan, and Minority Leader Baykal, prove that the Turks are taking action. The attempt by the Tarih Kurumu to debate and discuss with Armenian scholars proves that the Turks are taking action. The many books on this issue now being printed by Turkish scholars prove that the Turks are taking action. Men like Şükrü Elekdağ are fighting for the truth. I and others who have long opposed the lies are glad we are not alone.

In the past, scholars, including myself, have proposed that Turkish and Armenian historians, along with others who study this history, should meet to research and debate the history of the Turks and Armenians. Prime Minister Erdoğan and Dr. Baykal have proposed that all archives be opened to a joint commission on the Armenian Question. This is exactly what should be done. Most important, they have declared that historians should settle this question. They have also shown that Turks have nothing to fear from the truth.

We can only hope that scholarly integrity will triumph over politics and the Armenian Nationalists will join in debate. I am not hopeful they will do so. I recently gave two talks at the University of Minnesota, a center of so-called “Armenian Genocide Studies.” Dr. Taner Akçam teaches there. Dr. Akçam was invited to my lectures, but did not come. In fact, no Armenian came. Instead all notices of the lecture were torn down, so that others would not know I was speaking.

This is not a scholarly approach. It is political. The Armenian Nationalists have decided that they will win their political fight if no one knows there is a scholarly opposition to their ideology. Therefore, Armenian Nationalists will only meet with Turks who first state that Turks committed genocide. These are described in the American and European press as “Turkish scholars.” Readers are left with the impression, a carefully-cultivated impression, that Turkish scholars believe there was a genocide. Readers are left with the impression that it is only the Turkish Government that denies there was a genocide.

We know this is not true. Every year many books and articles are published in Turkey that not only deny the “Armenian Genocide” but document Armenian persecution of Turks. Conferences are held. Mass graves of innocent Turks killed by Armenian Nationalists are found. Museums and monuments are opened to commemorate the Turkish dead. Historians who have seen the Ottoman archival records or read the Turkish books on the Armenian Question do not accept the idea of a genocide. They know that in wartime many Armenians were killed by Turks, and that many Turks were killed by Armenians. They know that this was war, not genocide.

Why do so many in my country and Europe believe that the small group of Turks who accept the Armenian Nationalists beliefs represent Turkish scholarship? Why is it believed that these Turks speak for the real beliefs of Turkish professors? Part of the reason is prejudice. Prejudice against Turks has existed for so long that it easy for people to believe that Turks must have been guilty. Another reason, however, is that few in Europe and America know that real Turkish scholarship on this issue exists

Excellent work on the Armenian Question is now being written in Turkey. As you know, for too long Turks did not study the history of the Turks and Armenians. This has now changed. Anyone who has seen modern Turkish work on the Armenian Question must be impressed. The Tarih Kurumu has taken the lead in this, as it should. I obviously do not believe that Turks should be the only ones who write Turkish history, but Turks should be the main historians of Turkey. It is your country and your history. The problem lies in bringing the excellent history now being written in Turkey and the documents of Turkish history to scholars, politicians, and the public in other countries. The problem is that Turkish historians naturally write in Turkish, and Europeans and Americans do not read Turkish.

Should those who write the history of Turkey read Turkish? Yes, of course they should read Turkish. Should they use the many books on Turkish history written in Turkish? Yes, of course they should do so. Should they understand all sides of an issue, including the Turkish side, before they write? Yes, because that is a scholar’s duty. Do they always do so? No. In particular, most books on the so-called “Armenian Genocide” do not refer to modern Turkish studies. It is no use saying this is wrong. It is no use telling scholars to learn Turkish. They will not or cannot do so. To be fair, there are few places in my own country where Turkish is taught. The only answer is that the Turkish books must be translated into other languages, especially English, which is understood all over the world.

A start has been made. Today there are valuable books, originally in Turkish, that have been translated. These include Esat Uras’ excellent, if now outdated, history, the recent publication on the Armenian Question by the Turkish Parliament, the history written by the Turkish Foreign Office, the late Kâmuran Gürün’s Armenian File, Orel and Yuca’s Talat Paşa Telegrams, and others. The series of Ottoman documents on the Armenian Question, translated and published by the General Staff, the Ottoman Archives, the Tarih Kurumu, and the Foreign Ministry, are perhaps the most valuable of all. But there are so many others that are needed There are too many to list here, but I note that even the memoirs of Kâzim Karabekir and Ahmet Refik have not been translated. All these books should be read by the widest possible audience. They should be translated.

And the translations must include books that seem to be on topics other than the Armenian Question. There are no accurate and detailed military histories of World War I in the Ottoman Empire in any European language. What exists is often wrong, and not only wrong on the Armenians. General histories of World War I, for example, name the wrong generals, move troops to the wrong places, and never seem to understand Ottoman strategy. They seldom mention the one most significant factor in the war—the incredible strength and endurance of Turkish soldiers. Why is this important to the Armenian Question? It is important because the danger from the Armenian rebellion and the reason for the Armenian deportations cannot be understood unless the military situation is understood. The Ottoman sources prove that the Armenian rebellion was an essential part of the Russian military plan. The Ottoman sources prove that the Armenian rebellion was an important part of the Russian victory. The Ottoman sources prove that the Armenian rebels were, in effect, soldiers in the Russian Army.

There is a series of military histories that accurately portray the events of the Ottoman wars and the Turkish War of Independence—the histories published by the Turkish General Staff-- many volumes, filled with great detail, many maps, and descriptions of Ottoman plans and actions. These books are based on the reports of the Ottoman soldiers themselves, not only on the reports of the Ottoman enemies. They should be read by every historian of World War I. Yet these books are in Turkish. If they are ever to be used in America and Europe, they must be in English.

And there must be many more accurate and honest books on Turkey for teachers and students in Europe and America. Only by telling the truth to youth can the prejudices against Turks be finally ended. We have made a start. The Istanbul Chambers of Commerce have financed the first detailed book on Turkey for American teachers. Many more books are needed.

Finally, I wish to comment on current politics. Some may feel that I should not do so. I am not a Turk, and this is surely a Turkish problem. Nor am I a political scientist or a politician. I am a historian. I am speaking on this problem because it is basically a historical question. As a historian, I am infuriated when any group, or any country, is ordered to lie about its history. The political problem I am speaking of is the growing cry from Europe that Turkey must admit the “Armenian Genocide” before it can enter the European Union.

I am angry that anyone can believe that accepting a lie about Turkish history will somehow be a benefit to Europe or to Turkey. I know, and I believe you know, that it will make matters much worse.

Today the Armenian Nationalists are proclaiming in the parliaments of Europe and the Congress of the United States that they only want Turkey to admit that genocide occurred, then all will be well. I once spoke to an American official who told me that the Turks should say, “Yes, we did it, sorry,” and then forget it. I asked him if he thought the Turks had committed genocide. He replied that he did not know and did not care. I told him the Turks would never lie like that about their fathers and grandfathers. He told me I was naïve. But he was the one who was naïve, because he believed that the Armenian Nationalists would be satisfied with an apology.

ARMENIAN CLAIMS

The plan of the Armenian Nationalists has not changed in more than 100 years. It is to create an Armenia in Eastern Anatolia and the Southern Caucasus, regardless of the wishes of the people who live there. The Armenian Nationalists have made their plan quite clear. First, the Turkish Republic is to state that there was an “Armenian Genocide” and to apologize for it. Second, the Turks are to pay reparations. Third, an Armenian state is to be created. The Nationalists are very specific on the borders of this state. The map you see is based on the program of the Dashnak Party and the Armenian Republic. It shows what the Armenian Nationalists claim. The map also shows the population of the areas claimed in Turkey and the number of Armenians in the world.

If the Armenians were to be given what they claim, and if every Armenian in the world were to come to Eastern Anatolia, their numbers would still be only half of the number of those Turkish citizens who live there now. Of course, the Armenians of California, Massachusetts, and France would never come in great numbers to Eastern Anatolia. The population of the new “Armenia” would be less than one-fourth Armenian at best. Could such a state long exist? Yes, it could exist, but only if the Turks were expelled. That was the policy of the Armenian Nationalists in 1915. It would be their policy tomorrow.

We should be very clear on Armenian claims. Their claims are not based on history, because Armenians have not ruled in Eastern Anatolia for more than 900 years. Their claims are not based on culture: Before the revolutionaries and the Russians destroyed all peace, the Armenians and Turks shared the same culture. Armenians were integrated into the Ottoman system, and most of the Armenians spoke Turkish. They ate the same food as the Turks, shared the same music, and lived in the same sorts of houses. The Armenian claims are surely not based on a belief in democracy: Armenians have not been a majority in Eastern Anatolia for centuries, and they would be a small minority there now. Their claims are based on their nationalist ideology. That ideology is unchanging. It was the same in 1895 and 1915 as it is in 2005. They believe there should be an “Armenia” in Eastern Turkey—no matter the history, no matter the rights of the people who live there.

History teaches that the Armenian Nationalists will not stop their claims if the Turks forget the truth and say there was an Armenian Genocide. They will not cease to claim Erzurum and Van because the Turks have apologized for a crime they did not commit. No. They will increase their efforts. They will say, “The Turks have admitted they did it. Now they must pay for their crimes.” The same critics who now say the Turks should admit genocide will say the Turks should pay reparations. Then they will demand the Turks give Erzurum and Van and Elaziğ and Sivas and Bitlis and Trabzon to Armenia.

I know the Turks will not give in to this pressure. The Turks will not submit, because they know that to do so would simply be wrong. How can it be right to become a member of an organization that demands you lie as the price of admission? Would any honest man join an organization that said, “You can only join us if you first falsely say that your father was a murderer?”

I hope and trust that the European Union will reject the demands of the Armenian Nationalists. I hope they will realize that the Armenian Nationalists are not concerned with what is best for Europe. But whatever the European Union demands, I have faith in the honor of the Turks. What I know of the Turks tells me that they will never falsely say there was an Armenian Genocide. I have faith in the honesty of the Turks. I know that the Turks will resist demands to confess to a crime they did not commit, no matter the price of honesty. I have faith in the integrity of the Turks. I know that the Turks will not lie about this history. I know that the Turks will never say their fathers were murderers. I have that faith in the Turks.

***

[1] FO 424/196, Elliot to Currie, Tabreez, May 5, 1898.
[2] FO 195/2949, Molyneux-Seel to Lowther, Van, February 17, 1913.
[3] FO 195/2375 Molyneux-Seele to Lowther, Van, 9 October 1911.
[4] FO 195/2283, Dickson to O’Conor, Van, March 15, 1908.
[5] FO 371/1783 Molyneux-Seele to Lowther, Van, 4 April, 1913.

TOP BRITISH DIPLOMAT OFFERS UK'S SUPPORT TO TURKEY ON A RANGE OF ISSUES

2009-05-15T15:23:00.001+10:00

"I think it should be absolutely applauded that Turkey has undertaken these bold steps," said the top British diplomat in Turkey, referring to the diplomatic process of normalization between Turkey and Armenia.

In an interview with Today?s Zaman, British Ambassador Nick Baird described a visit made by Turkish President Abdullah GЭl to Armenia last September as "very courageous.‘ The trip set off a series of diplomatic initiatives to normalize relations between Turkey and Armenia, beginning with the possibility of opening their border, which was closed in 1993. Baird acknowledged that the issues in the Caucasus are complex but offered his government?s help to facilitate a thaw between neighboring countries. ?We are hugely keen to help solve the Nagorno-Karabakh issue, and we are very supportive of the Minsk process,‘ he said. The Minsk Group was created in 1992 under the umbrella of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) with the intention of finding a solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh problem. The Minsk Group is co-chaired by Russia, the United States and France. Recalling that the United Kingdom had offered to open British archives to help settle a dispute over tragic events that happened in 1915, Ambassador Baird said Turkey?s suggestion of establishing a joint history commission to investigate genocide allegations is ?a good one and we absolutely support it.‘ He revealed, however, that the UK was never asked to participate in such a commission or provide a historian. ?If we are asked to do so, we would be happy to consider it," he said.

Asked if he is concerned about Russia being a disruptive influence on regional peace, Baird said, "I very much hope that Russia will play a constructive role in the Caucasus.‘ ?They [Russians] have a great interest in political stability in the region,‘ he emphasized, indicating that some positive signs have already emerged on the Russian side in solving the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. Baird believes the current economic crisis has resulted in one positive development, albeit unintentionally. ?It reminded us how we are so interconnected with each other,‘ he said. ?The energy-rich countries like Russia all want stability in client states so that they can pay their bills without a delay,‘ the British ambassador noted. On the Nabucco project, a pipeline that will carry Caspian oil to Europe through Turkey, Baird said, ?We are making progress and having successful negotiations despite some political difficulties with Moscow."

Close cooperation on terrorism

The UK?s top representative in Ankara described the level of cooperation with Turkey on terrorism as "very strong.‘ After a visit from Home Secretary Jacqui Smith on Jan. 5-7, cross-agency involvement in combating terrorism has picked up speed, according to Baird. The UK considers the outlawed Kurdistan Workers? Party (PKK) — an armed Kurdish group waging a separatist battle in the Southeast — a terrorist organization. ?This classification gives us certain powers in terms of the seizure of its financial assets and the cutting of its activities,‘ Baird explained. He further remarked, ?There is a noticeable increase in the number of terrorist arrests in the UK, and the Turkish government recognizes the increased commitment by British authorities." On the European front, Baird hinted that his government was trying to cooperate in developing an action plan against the PKK?s terrorist activities throughout Europe.

Commenting on the Kurdish problem, the ambassador urged a broader and more comprehensive action plan, saying, "Complex problems need complex responses.‘ He said Turkey needs to address security measures, economic development, assistance programs, protecting cultural rights and having good relations with the Kurdish regional government in northern Iraq as a single package. Acknowledging the progress the Turkish government has made so far, Baird said, ?We see genuine improvements in Turkey.‘ Discussing Iraq, the ambassador praised Turkey?s foreign policy and its focus on fostering political stability in the war-torn country. He acknowledged the importance of Turkey?s encouragement for the Sunni minority to remain engaged in the political system. ?The surprise visit of Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr to Turkey earlier this month did not go unnoticed,‘ he added. The visit showed Turkey?s leverage on the Shiite population in Iraq as well. Relations with Iraq also carry huge economic importance for Turkey as the trade volume between the two countries has grown to $5 billon annually. ?Turkey is indisputably the most important neighbor of Iraq,‘ Baird stressed, adding that the UK supports the transit of significant amounts of Iraqi gas through Turkey. Turkey is very much involved in the economic development of Iraq, especially in the northern part where most Kurds live. ?We are trying to enhance economic cooperation, especially in the Basra area in the south that was controlled by British forces,‘ Ambassador Baird said. Turkey already maintains a consulate in Basra to keep an eye on economic opportunities. The British ambassador explained how crucial it is for NATO to have Turkey?s involvement in Afghanistan. ?The terrain in Afghanistan is very similar to one you have in Turkey and your gendarmerie is very experienced in handling security in tough geography,‘ he said, ?so the training of Afghanis by the Turkish military is very important for stability in Afghanistan.‘ Turkey is also providing aid and development assistance to Kabul and has contributed substantially in the reconstruction of the country by building schools and hospitals in and around Kabul. ?I?m trying to get more involvement from the Turkish Cooperation and Development Agency [TİKA],‘ Baird said. TİKA is a Turkish government agency charged with delivering aid and development assistance throughout the world. With news coming out of Pakistan of violent clashes between the military and the Taliban, Ambassador Baird seemed very concerned about the stability of the country, describing the situation as ?very troublesome.‘ ?What we ought to do is to provide economic help, support the army and restore political stability," he said. Turkey?s role in assisting Pakistani government

Stressing that Turkey plays an important role in assisting the Pakistani government, he said the Pakistani army must control the situation on the ground. "We have a substantial number of British citizens with Pakistani origin, and they are worried about their families and relatives back in Pakistan,‘ he underlined. The ambassador reiterated his country?s support for Turkey?s full membership in the European Union, but cautioned that the Cyprus issue posed a major challenge along the way. He conceded that resolution of the Cyprus issue is a very painstaking process but sounded hopeful as the process is again under way after a period of no talks. He urged leaving the past where it is supposed to be and moving on. Baird said that if the Cyprus issue were resolved, there would be huge infusion of EU aid to Turkish Cypriots, amounting 250 million euros. ?Considering the northern Turkish part is very small, the aid would be one of the largest per capita assistances within the EU,‘ he claimed. Ambassador Baird also provided an update on the previously announced British University that is to be launched in Turkey shortly. Though he conceded that the process is slow and has been hindered at times, Baird said, ?We find the Turkish side to be flexible, and the work is in progress." The bulk of the problem seems to have been caused by differences between the university systems in the two countries.

Diary reveals Turkish soldiers cared for Korean orphans in war

2009-05-12T17:36:00.002+10:00

Haydar Karakurt, a young man from Kayseri, voluntarily joined the first brigade going to the Korean War in 1950. He returned as a war veteran and with a diary. He had recorded what he saw and experienced day by day in the Korean War. In the diary, he wrote about a school in Suwon opened by Turkish soldiers for children orphaned during the war. And he made a request of his son Burak: “This school should not be forgotten after I die.”

Burak, who grew up with the Korean War memories of his father, received the diary from him as a present shortly before he died in 2003. Burak Karakurt, who works as a lawyer, soon began to conduct research in Turkey and South Korea. Following leads from the diary, he interviewed 133 Turkish veterans of the Korean War and wrote the book “Kore’de Türk Kahramanları” (Turkish Heroes in Korea), published in 2005.

These days, Burak Karakurt has been working on another project related to the school established by the Turkish soldiers in Suwon, 30 kilometers south of Seoul. He spoke with some of the surviving orphans who were educated at the school and found that they would like to have the school rebuilt. They hope the year 2009 celebrations marking the 60th year of Turkish-South Korean relations will present an opportunity to make this wish come true.

Turkey in the Korean War

Although Turkey maintained a neutral stance during World War II, it was under pressure at the beginning of the 1950s from the Soviet Union, especially regarding the control of the Turkish straits and land claims in the east of Turkey.

Following the Soviet Union’s involvement in the Far East, Korea was divided into North and South. Then the North Korean Army invaded the South on June 25, 1950. So the United States partnered with the United Nations, and 22 nations agreed to send either troops or medical units to help South Korea. On the other side, communist allied Chinese forces intervened on behalf of North Korea. So as each side was supported by external forces, the conflict turned out to be an extension of the Cold War in the Far East.

Sixteen countries responded to the UN resolution by sending troops to stop the invasion of South Korea. One of the first major participants to send a brigade was Turkey, which committed nearly 5,500 troops. They arrived in Pusan in mid-October from the eastern Mediterranean port of İskenderun. Most of the enlisted men were from the small towns and villages of eastern Turkey. They remained in Korea until midsummer 1954.

The 1st Turkish Brigade, commanded by Brig. Gen. Tahsin Yazıcı, was a regimental combat team with three infantry battalions, along with supporting artillery and engineers. It was the only brigade-sized UN unit permanently attached to the US 25th Infantry Division throughout the war.

Initially, the Turkish Brigade assisted in protecting the supply lines of UN forces, which were advancing toward North Korea. However, it was the battles of Kunuri and Kumyanjangni that earned the Turkish Brigade a reputation and the praise of UN forces. And because of their heroic actions and sacrifices in these battles, a monument was erected in Seoul in the memory of the Turkish soldiers who fought in Korea.

In total, four Turkish brigades went into battle in Korea. In the end, 741 Turkish soldiers died and 2,147 were wounded. In addition, 234 Turkish soldiers were taken as prisoners of war and 175 were unaccounted for. Turkey, which lost about 10 percent of its soldiers in Korea, passed a law giving the title of “veteran” to all Turkish soldiers who fought in Korea from Sept. 25, 1950 to July 27, 1953. Even after the armistice, Turkey maintained troops in Korea as part of the peacekeeping force. Turkish troops won honors from the US Congress and the South Korean president for their successful defense during the Battle of Kunuri.

Internationally, joining the Western alliance against the Soviets paid off for Turkey. In 1952 Turkey was accepted into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which was established in 1949.

Turkish education in school behind war front

Suwon was hugely affected by the war, in which many Korean children were orphaned. Turkish soldiers first put the children together in a tent at Turkish headquarters to keep them safe and healthy. Then, as the number of orphaned children surpassed 100, they reconstructed a destroyed building to use as a school and orphanage. They called it the Ankara School and Orphanage. Turkish officers and Korean teachers worked at the school. A young South Korean became the headmaster.

Children were given Turkish lessons and could sing the Turkish national anthem. Classes were taught in Turkish, English and Korean. In order to keep the orphaned children as happy as possible under the circumstances of war, they were not burdened with a heavy load of homework. Music and physical education classes were given more importance.

School supplies reaching Suwon from Ankara made the students happy and the teachers more effective. A piano and other musical instruments were played at the school to contribute to the psychological well-being of the children. Monthly special performances by the children made both the Turkish soldiers and children cheerful. Children looked forward to the return of the soldiers, who were father figures for them, from the front.

Gen. Mehmet Nuri Yamut, the chief of general staff at the time, visited the orphanage-school in Suwon and had his picture taken with the children and teachers in front of the school.

Following the cease-fire in 1953, the school remained open, but as the Turkish troops withdrew, it was closed. Then children were placed in various orphanages depending on their age.

Currently, about 30 students of the Ankara School and Orphanage in Suwon are alive. Burak Karakurt, sponsored by Korean Airlines and the Society of Social and Economic Solidarity with Pacific Countries, visited South Korea twice to bring those people together. He managed to meet with seven of them who are in their late 60s and recorded their memories. They said they would like to meet the families of the Turkish soldiers who embraced them years ago.

One of them is Cha Yang Cha “We were so small, only about 5 years old. The Turkish soldiers who came to Korea to fight in the war embraced us. They became our mothers and fathers. The name ‘Turkey’ fills my heart with peace,” she said.

She also said she has never forgotten the days she spent at the Turkish school.

Another survivor, Lee Hak Chang, said he cannot find words to express his feelings of gratitude toward Turks:

“When I hear the word ‘Turkey,’ I remember two things. One is the Turkish soldiers who embraced us, and the other is a distant cousin. Turks are my relatives. When I close my eyes, I often see the Turkish soldiers. We lived our childhood with the Turkish soldiers. ‘Turkey’ often reminds me of the Turkish soldiers who gave us food, cuddled us and educated us.”

His eyes full of tears like the others, Lee Sang Chin reiterated those feelings, saying that he can never forget Turkey. “To our children, we always tell about the Turkish soldiers and Turkey.”

Kim He Te pointed out that the Turkish troops prevented civilian massacres in Korea. “They were so good, and they never retreated. If they had retreated in Kunuri, many civilians could have died. The Turks saved us. If I live today, this is because of Turks. I could easily give my life for the Turks.”

Turkish soldiers did not forget Korean orphans

Upon his return to the Turkish capital, Gen. Yazıcı talked about the orphanage-school:

“I want to point out that there is a school there our flag flies over, and the name of that school is the Ankara School. It has 118 students. There are two hours of Turkish lessons a week. Our brigade supplies the needs of that school. The students have learned five of our marches so far.”

Korean War veteran Mehmet Soylu also said they were very happy to help the orphans. He said he was responsible for transporting food to the school. “When we approached the school, the children were so warm toward us. And we were so happy to help them.”

In his diary, Haydar Karakurt wrote about the school along with his other war memories. He wrote that many Turkish soldiers showed great affection toward the children, putting them in the place of their loved ones in Turkey.

Korean children would greet them in Turkish, said Metin Özcan, another war veteran. He also said he would like to meet with them again. “I wish there was an opportunity to see them again.”

Reiterating similar sentiments, veteran Er Rıfat Karamürsel said the soldiers enjoyed attending the performances of the schoolchildren. “I cried whenever they sang our national anthem. I wish I could meet and see them again.”

60th year of bilateral relations to be celebrated

Since Turkey and South Korea will celebrate the 60th year of relations between the two countries, next year could provide that opportunity for the grown Korean students of the Ankara School and their benefactors, the Korean War veterans. The Korean survivors said they would also like to see the school revived, at least by giving its name to an existing school.

For his part, Burak Karakurt works tirelessly to make those wishes come true, at the same time fulfilling the dreams of his father.

21 December 2008, Sunday
MESUT ÇEVİKALP İSTANBUL

ARMENIAN TRANSLATORS' BETRAYAL IN KOREAN WAR

2009-05-12T17:25:00.002+10:00

Monday, 11 May 2009
It is unveiled that Armenian translators assigned by Americans during Korean War left Turkish division defenceless at the frontline by hiding critical information from them and they caused many Turkish soldier to perish.

It is unveiled that Armenian translators assigned by Americans during Korean War left Turkish division defenceless at the frontline by hiding critical information from them and they caused many Turkish soldier to perish.

A meeting in Los Angeles, US unveiled the story that why Turkish division endangered so much in Korean war.

VETERAN COMMANDER CONFIRMS

Stating that Americans assigned Armenian translators since there wasn’t any Turkish soldier who speak English or Korean Language, veteran Squadron Leader Vedat Aslay said that Turkish division lost many soldiers because of misinformation given by Armenian translators.

Korean Colone Kwang J. Yang also confirms the event. Yang says, “Assuming the war was over, American forces started to withdraw to catch Christmas in their homeland. But during withdrawal Chinese forces attacked with 500,000 soldiers. While Americans withdraw, Armenian translators did not inform Turks and 5000 Turkish soldier were all alone against 500,000 Chinese soldier. Even they were trapped 2400 of them could succeed making thgrough out of the circle and 256 of them was captured by Chinese soldiers. They were released by international agreements afterwards.”

Speaking in the meeting, one of the Korean Officer Myong C. Seo, “I fought for my country but Turks sacrificed theirselves just to help us. My eyes fills with tears each time i remember. People from some other country gave their lives away for us”.

Armenian Question in a Psychological Context

2009-05-12T17:12:00.002+10:00

Turkish-Armenian issue: Victimization and Large-Group identity

F. Sevinç GÖRAL*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstract:

Psychology and psychoanalysis have gradually become involved in the politics, international relations and interpretations of macro events during the last two decades. Their contribution to understanding the large groups’ conflicts has been recognized as useful tool to handle the long term conflicts between two nations. This article examines the psychological dynamics operating within the Turkish- Armenian issue. It was planned to accomplish this aim by two separate papers, former of which focuses on the psychological mechanisms determining the Armenian side’s attitudes and political actions. Effects of victimization psychology and large group identity are emphasized as important factors for the skeleton of Armenians’ group behavior. It is concluded that there are psychological processes influencing what seems to be the reality in politics, for this reason politics should include more non-traditional methods of conflict resolution.

Key words: Psychoanalysis, political psychology, large group identity, victimization, Turkish-Armenian relations

Introduction

There are some important underlying and occult phenomena, which are affecting and operating in the events, the perceptions, the behaviors, the emotions, the relationships, the politics and even the world, but cannot be named or comprehended easily. Yet, some questions can not be answered without understanding these phenomena. For example, why the members of the some societies identify and describe themselves through their large-group identity, such as being a member of a community, a group or a nation, whereas some communities do not show this characteristic? Why some groups can easily come together and become a united whole around an ideology, a leader or a phenomenon, but others show the same reflex only in the war or other threat situations? How the social or political events, which are occurred ages and generations ago, can influence and arouse the emotions of members as vivid as the event has been happen to themselves, whereas the same individuals show insensitivity toward the pains of other human beings from the other groups and be cruel toward them? How some groups could accept and conform to the constructed and given realities and belief systems, which might be distorting the reality as well, without any questioning? Why a between-group conflict cannot be easily resolved and maintains its strength throughout years despite huge amount of political, economic, military or judicial precautions and protections? Even it has been resolved, how come it reappears lively again as if it was there all the time without any indication?

These kinds of questions have become important research areas for social sciences. International relations, politics and sociology tried to examine similar questions by means of the macro theories or models. Yet there has been no integrated theory that involves all the answers of these questions come out from these social sciences. However, the world has increasingly become a conflict laden place and these conflicts can not be worked out without considering the answers of these questions. Political psychology which is a newly emerging and developing discipline and some other parts of psychology have become increasingly more involving to these research questions. This article aimed to understand the Turkish-Armenian issue, which is a crucial matter in dispute in Turkey, by means of examining the psychological dynamics. It was proposed that this point of view provides a beneficial perspective, which can contribute to the policies or the strategies for both Turkish and Armenian sides and international powers.

Contribution of Psychology and Psychoanalysis to the understanding of International Conflicts

Most of the social sciences, especially politics, sociology, history and anthropology, have been worked on different aspects of conflicts, battles or wars. They have studied on inter-group conflicts and their consecutive results such as immigrations, poverty, and formation of sub-cultural structures within the society… etc.

Politics and international relations have failed in the predictions and the provisions for the future, particularly in the issues of the collapse of Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), racism and resulting Holocaust phenomena, and the establishment of international, supranational political unions like European Union during the last 50-60 years.[1] Last years’ publications of international relations suggested that realist approach, which emphasize the macro- level analysis in international relations and state is the primary and rational actor in the international relations, became to loose its power. These publications proposed a new interdisciplinary approach that in both macro and micro level analyses are integrated to each other and the macro events are seen as they are multidimensional and reciprocal rather than understood by linear deterministic processes.[2] While there was an evolution from linear, cause-effect type of understanding of international relations to reciprocal, mutual, multi dimensional and multidisciplinary comprehension of macro events in international relations, there emerged a similar change in psychology and psychoanalysis, which are more micro level disciplines examining the intra-psychic processes. In the last 30 years, researches on the different aspects of ethnic groups, in-group and out-group relations, group-leader relations… etc. has become accumulated in psychology. Also the build up knowledge on group relations have begun to be used in the conflict resolution practices. For example, some social psychology theories brought new premises that emphasize the mutuality principle and human factor in international relations against the propositions of realists. According to these theories, international conflicts come out from the psychosocial processes of the collective needs and the fears of the groups, rather then from the rational decision making processes of the macro level actors through their objective evaluations. International conflict is a phenomenon operating via social processes rather then a result of a disagreement between two or more states. In other words, international conflict does not arise from the damage resulting from administration of the physical or political force onto other side; rather it comes from a multilayered process, which is based on repetitive reciprocal interactions between two sides. In addition, international conflicts should not be formulated as the sequence of actions in which both actors consecutively respond to each other in a cause-effect relationship. Besides this interactive nature, they have usually self-induced characteristics and provoked by in-group processes as well.[3]

Consequently, it could be proposed that psychology and psychoanalysis can be beneficial and be used for the understanding of the international conflicts, that international conflicts have the impression that are operating in the international level of action at first.[4] By considering the risk of trapping into reductionism and “psychologism”, psychological and psychoanalytical examination of political events and international conflicts could have a considerable contribution to the understanding of international and inter-group conflicts.

Effect of Victimization in the Turkish-Armenian issue

Some long term problems of traumatized individuals are based on and originated from their cognitions about themselves, other people and the world. These individuals usually see themselves as a weak person and a victim who is mistreated. They perceive the others and the outer world as powerful, oppressive, cruel and enemy. These perceptions, beliefs and cognitions result in a change in the construction of self identity which has weaker connection with the reality. As a result of these changes in cognitive processes, the individual mostly experiences interpersonal difficulties and problems. This phenomenon is named as ‘victimization’, in that the individuals perceive the self as helpless/victim and the others as offender. Most of the traumatic events related to the victimization phenomena particularly involve intentional and human made events like wars, torture, terrorism related events, physical or sexual abuse.

By means of group identity theory and group psychology perspectives, victimization phenomenon can be a beneficial conceptual metaphor used in order to understand the political events emerged in international relations. Psychology of victimization, which is an important operating mechanism within many ethnic, religion related, cultural, economic or political conflicts, has an impact on Turkish-Armenian relations as a maintaining factor for the disputes and conflicts. In international relations platform, there are some situations in which one side takes the role of victim[5] and the relationship between two sides is begin to be perceived by others through victim-offender duality. The common examples of these situations might be that one nation state might show defensive reflexes for the separatists or there might be conflict laden relations between the marginal or the minority group and the state. In both examples, it is quite easy to see the powerless side, which is usually the marginal group or minority group, as victim, especially if the state uses coercive power for the aim of deterrence.

Many experiences of mistreatments and excessive use of power have been witnessed throughout the history. In these experiences one group uses unfair, cruel and excessive power over other group and there is a shared judgment about victimization within both supranational and international arenas. Dropping the atomic bombs upon Japan by United States of America, biased political sanctions and unequal power uses during the ethnic conflicts in the Balkans and the Caucasus, the genocide of Muslims in Kosovo, and the genocide of Jews in Europe by Nazis could be the examples of these experiences. The common reality shared by these experiences is the excessive use of power that damaged side is victimized, which is recognized in international level of judgment.

There is also other side of the coin that victimization has the unseen side, which is the excusing phenomenon. This is operating within idealized western notions of human rights and justice as a substratum. The modern western societies generally are perceived to have a tendency of excusing the weak, damaged, suppressed part and making positive discrimination. The origin of this tendency is related to the primitive motivation for the projection of the bad parts onto other in order to be purified from the one’s sins. By projecting one’s bad and unwanted qualities onto the other, one can maintain the identity intact and purified. The modernization process of the West involves the projection of the aggressive parts onto “others”, who is usually the “barbarian” Orient.

Assoc. Prof. Erol Göka emphasized the psychological factors in the Armenian question and mentioned about the psychological climate for genocide in the groups and nations. He states that “the Holocaust practice in Europe toward Jews by Germans forms the main frame of this psychological atmosphere. Within the frame of the Holocaust, a new ideological and psychological atmosphere and what sociologists called “human rights age” that almost giving high premium for victim and reinforcing the role of victim emerged after the Second World War.”[6] He suggested that this condition of increasingly accepted state of being the victim among the Western societies is being abused by Armenians. They try to take advantage by giving extra weight to their originally rightful pains. Göka emphasized the excessive excusing psychology of Western civilization, which is responsible for the two world wars, as the main underlying mechanism of this victimization psychology. He evaluated that the thesis of Armenian Diaspora, which states that “Hitler learned genocide from Turks”, is actually a mechanism of purification in the Western/Christian consciousness.[7] It is noticeable that Judaism has a strengthening and widening structure, which is nourished and reinforced by victimization, in the world. It was also suggested that the Holocaust provided the Jews to gain positive discrimination form Western societies. The Judaism gets stronger by benefiting this situation.

The same relationship between the Holocaust and the construction of Jewish identity has been attempted to be used in the construction of Armenian identity.[8] After the signing of Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in United Nations in 9th October 1948, Armenians began to depict insistently that the Armenian relocation in 1915 was also genocide. At the same period, Armenian Diaspora living in the western countries, like USA, England, France, Germany, have begun to realize that the important parts of Armenian identity, such as language, life style, cultural characteristics, folklore, and community traits, begin to dissolve within the host land culture, thus they become to be assimilated. The Armenian Church, Hinchak and Tashnak parties and other Armenian aid associations, which were experiencing survival anxieties due to the dissolution of Armenian identity, used the assertion of this genocide thesis as a shelter to resist for annihilation. This thesis provided them a balanced formula for keeping the group identity alive without preventing them from joining with the host land. Armenian Diaspora members usually do not have an idea of returning to their homeland due to Republic of Armenia’s economical and political difficulties and shortages in natural resources, in socio-cultural structure and in social life aspects. Thus the mental representation of genocide operates as a mental homeland, which emotionally supplies the construction of a shared Armenian identity and plays a role in the transmission of this identity to the next generations. [9]

Psychology of victimization, an important element of Armenian identity, has roots in the Armenian mythology. Armenians believe that they come from Noah’s lineage and become to be a nation. According to their belief, the tribe, who can survive from the great Noah Flood by means of climbing to the Mountain of Ararat, was their ancestors. This is why they claim for the Ararat, as if it belongs to Armenians as a sacred land. This assertion is reinforced by Armenian Church. Based on this thesis, Armenians describe themselves as “chosen nation” due to this collective belief. Mental representations of their identity consist of this core belief that their nation has been tested by various tests throughout history and they have overcome all difficulties and could have survived. Now it could be understandable why the Armenian Church tries to make a connection between the Noah Flood and the Relocation of Armenians in 1915. There is an intention of strengthening the image of “victim nation” who has survived despite great catastrophic events.[10] This analogy which is consciously and intentionally emphasized by Armenian Church lead to the perception that the Relocation has had the intention to extinct their race, like the great flood which removed all other races from earth’s surface. Thus their large group identity and mental representations related to this identity provides a psychological base for and reinforces their insistence of genocide thesis.

An important component and the axis of the group existence of Armenian identity is the shared set of beliefs that are based on being a victimized group. The great traumatic events that they are believed to have been experiencing since the formation of their community differentiates Armenians from other nations or groups. They are the nation who has been tested throughout the history and resuscitated again right on the time when they have been ceased to exist. In addition to that they had been the victimized side all the time in history. All these elements of images and belief codes are the integral part of Armenian identity. Besides, the Armenian Diaspora and the governors try to hold these images alive and perceive them to be an opportunity for benefiting in international relations. Geopolitical, demographic, economic, political and military statuses of the Republic of Armenia are also reinforcing this victimization perception. Republic of Armenia is a landlocked state which is deprived of rich natural resources. It also surrounded by neighbors with whom they have distant relations that could create security problems and threat perception. In the west, there is Turkey with larger amount of population, richer natural resources and stronger economy. In the east, there is Azerbaijan, which has a sea coast and relatively rich resources, but with whom there is increased tension due to the war about Nagorno Karabagh. In the north, there is Georgia with whom there are no good and stable relations except for their narrow economic relation and it separates Armenia from Russia, which is historically and culturally closer to Armenia and supports it in economic and political areas. In the south, there is north border of Iran, where the most of the population is consisted of Azerbaijanis. Consequently, four sides of it are surrounded by neighbors with insecure relations that create a disadvantageous position which promotes both victimization and excusing psychology. Being surrounded by these neighbors, which share the same kinship and bloodlines that Armenia have been involved in the ethnic enmity toward them in the past, intensify the perception of misery and victimization psychology in Armenian group behavior. They also reinforce the psychology of excusing and attitudes of premium giving to the victimization in the west. Especially its relationship with Russia, which can be defined by an analogy of clinging and dependent relationship between father and son, is legitimized by this state of being wrapped up. It is seen that religious and historical bonds between two states result in Russia to give privileged position to Armenia among other states which have took their independence by separating from USSR in the Caucasus. From this base, Russia uses its power over Armenia in order to consolidate its operative effect in economic, political and military areas in the Caucasus.[11]

In summary, the “identity” stands out as an important factor in the problem between Armenia and Turkey. The psychology of victimization, which has been constituted the identity of the “victim” or identity of suppressed nation and created the perception of the group in need of protection, influences the international relations regarding the Turkish- Armenian issue. The group reflexes operating in Armenian identity base on the perennial enmity of Turks. Turks and Turkey constitute the essential “other” for Armenian side to project their aggressive parts and maintain the identity of wretchedness. Armenia seeks legitimization for this phenomenon in juridical and political areas of international relations.

Role of Large-Group identity in the Turkish-Armenian issue

Large group identity is constructed by the mental codes, which are acquired through internalization mechanism within the development and socialization processes of an individual by the members of the group. They are the mental representations help to make adjustments in the relationships with the social world. Large group identity is intermixed with the individual’s personal identity. Because this large group identity is “ego syntonic”, which means that the beliefs, thoughts, emotions, behaviors and attitudes pertaining to large group identity are compatible with the person’s own mental world, the individual does not aware of its existence unless there is an evident threat to this identity. Yet, it underlies and determines the mental activities, attitudes and behaviors of an individual as much as the personal identity actually. In his tent model[12], Vamik D. Volkan defined large group identity with an image of a tent canvas covering different individuals of the same group, who might not see and meet with other members any time. This canvas covers on top of the personal clothes of the individual, which represents the personal identity. It brings people together by creating the we-ness in the group and draws the borders of the group by defining the in-group and out-group. This border protects group from outer dangers. Group leader functions the pole of the tent, which keeps the tent upright position and determines its direction. When the canvas or the pole of the tent is threatened, the shared we-ness within the group increases, which will eventually create the awareness of being a member of that large-group. Large group identity becomes to be even more important than the personal identity in the threatening dangerous situations.

The characteristics of the threatening event for the large group are important determinants of how the group will react to this event. The danger can be a real danger that could threaten the group existence. Or the event can be just ‘perceived’ to be threatening to the group, yet it may not be dangerous in reality. The important thing here is the sharing of this perception by the group members, as the amplifier of we-ness.

1915 Armenian Relocation has been an important traumatic event especially for the innocent Armenians who have not been involved in the rebellion actions. Because, besides these people faced with the risk of being killed due to war context, they fought with poverty, starvation, epidemic diseases caused by the immigration as well. Survivors have experienced traumatic events or witnessed such events throughout the way to their new place into be exiled. As a matter of fact, this was not difficult to expect that this relocation, all by itself, was a great traumatic event that will strengthen and magnify the large group identity of Armenians.

Trauma has great impact in the human mind and psychology. The perception of the event, beside its characteristics in reality, determines its degree of influence. In order for the human mind to resolve the effects of trauma, it needs processing the disturbing information like a digest process of the food that is required for the organism to absorb it. The existing mental structures are broken down into pieces by the trauma. The reconstruction of these shaken belief system and schemas of the individual is the main object to be achieved. The individual needs to live and complete his or her grief by means of accepting his or her loss and grief in order achieve a new set of beliefs and reconstructed identity. In order complete the grief process, the lost object should be retained in the past as memories, should not carried into the present issues.

Societal traumas also result in similar consequences for the large group identity, like the effects of loss and trauma to the personal identity. If the members of the group perceive themselves as weak, helpless, damaged and victim, the group carries the past traumatic event into the present as a “chosen trauma”. This event is transmitted throughout the generations and tried to keep alive.[13] “Transgenerational transmission is when an older person unconsciously externalizes his traumatized self onto a developing child’s personality. A child then becomes a reservoir for the unwanted, troublesome parts of an older generation. Because the elders have influence on a child, the child absorbs their wishes and expectations and is driven to act on them. It becomes the child’s task to mourn, to reverse the humiliation and feelings of helplessness pertaining to the trauma of his forebears.”[14] The transmission of the trauma-related affective and cognitive material to the child does not have to be occurred intentionally and verbally. The mental images are delivered through non- verbal communication or while transmitting family history by stories, fairy tales, songs… etc. unconsciously. The messages such as “you mourn for my pain instead of me”, “I was humiliated, you reversed this for me”, “be assertive and protect yourself and your rights instead of me”, “idealize our victimization”, “take revenge of violence against me”, “repair our trauma”[15] are given to the next generations.

The group leader can exacerbate and inflame the chosen trauma during the generational transmission. The easiest way to mobilize and direct a group in a desired way is to create a perception that there is threat outside and to enhance we-ness in the group. The group identity, which has been sleeping for a while, can be mobilized and enlivened by means of making the group to remember the past trauma or loss again. The trauma or loss, for which the grief process could not have completed by the group in the past, can be very potent tool to manage the group. Even if there is a great time lag between the traumatic event and the present, the trauma can be re-experienced by the group as vivid as if it is happened to them. “Time collapse” occurs that the past collapses onto the present and affective responses given by the group nearly as powerful as the time that traumatic event has been experienced.[16] Especially in the times of stress, the group regresses to a lower level of functioning that the emotional and other mental processes shared by the group becomes more primitive thus more easy to control by leaders or other political actors. These vigorous emotions experienced within the group are used with the intention of social mobilization.

From this point of view, 1915 Armenian Relocation is functioning as “chosen trauma” for the Armenians. It is an important source of we-ness and group identity especially for the Armenian Diasporas. This historical event occupies great place in the Armenian policies. Great part of Armenian Diaspora’s activities is constituted by the struggle for the recognition of this event as “Armenian genocide”. These can show that although the event has been occurred at least four generations ago, the Relocation has great impact on Armenians today and influences the group emotionally. Although third and fourth generations have not experienced the relocation, they show greater enmity toward Turkish people than the first generation Armenians. Also they are more radical about and insist more harshly on the “Armenian genocide” then the preceding generations. These observations are enough to state that there is psychological processes operating behind the reality in Turkish- Armenian issue. Armenian policies try to reinforce the transgenerational transmission and time collapse for the 1915 Relocation by means of the disinformation procedures, which can take place through media and national education devices in order to make the society homogeneous enough to control the group in a desired direction. These kinds of psychological processes and mechanisms can be used as a manipulation device in the international relations by macro actors as well. For example, Armenian side’s thesis and demands from Turkey have been stated by different authorities who are against the Turkey’s membership to the European Union. The demands for the acceptance of “Armenian genocide” have been put in front of Turkish side as an obstacle for starting of the negotiations. This historical issue is tried to be used as a political tool in international relations.

There is a research, which has results supporting the abovementioned opinions, has been conducted by Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV) in Turkey and Armenia.[17] Some examples of the results can be revealed that Armenians stated their information resources about Turks and Turkey are press/media, history books, and old generations/family seniors in sequence.[18] The rate of giving erroneous answers for the Turkey’s characteristics like religious structure or political system has been found to be increasing by increasing the education level of the Armenians.[19] These results indicated that government ideology and perspective may distort the information given to the Armenians about Turkey by disinformation mechanisms.

The careful examination of research results revealed that Armenians were more prejudiced in their responses then the Turks. For example, while many Turks have answered the questions measuring their level of knowledge about Armenians by the response of “I don’t know” generally, Armenians generally and consistently have given negative responses for the same questions about Turks.[20] This shows that Turkish side was more neutral toward Armenians, whereas Armenians were more biased in their responses; hence Armenian side uses more projective mechanisms then Turkish side.[21] Similarly, for the questions measuring the attitudes of two sides about each other, while variety of the answers of Turkish side is broad, Armenians gave stereotypically negative answers, thus variety of their responses is small and restricted negatively. This indicated that Armenians are more homogeneous group then Turks in terms of their attitudes about them. When they were asked to report their expectations about other side’s attitudes about themselves, Armenians expected that Turks have more negative attitudes about themselves then in reality, thus their expectations were negatively biased. On the contrary, to lesser extend, Turks expected that Armenians have more positive attitudes about Turks then in reality, thus their expectations were positively biased.[22] In the questions tried to assess the mental representations of Armenians and Turks about each other, two- thirds of the answers of Armenians consisted of negative adjectives, such as “enemy, barbarian, bloodthirsty, murderer, wild…”. Whereas one-thirds of Turks’ responses involved negative adjectives, like “egoist, self-centered, prejudiced, enemy…”. Remainder two-thirds of Turks’ responses contained definitions such as “good people, endeavoring, a friendly nation, very clever, human, Christian, Armenian…”[23]

According to a result revealing “transgenerational transmission”, while 18-29 age of Armenians were the group which define the Turks with the most negative terms, 30-44 age group defined the Turks with average and more positive terms.[24] Similarly, in the question of “would you purchase the Turkish products?”, the younger the age group, the higher the rate of response of “no”.[25] These results show that there is higher rate of enmity and prejudice toward Turks in the third generation then the first and second generations. Consequently, unresolved trauma and mourning of the first generation of Armenians after the 1915 Relocation is transmitted to the third generation through grandfather/ grandmother and grandchild relationships. And these can be evidence that Armenian policy, which was transformed toward policies that promote the enmity against Turks and demands of the recognition of “Armenian genocide” especially after 1950’s, uses mass communication for disinformation about Turkish side and pumping the Turkish enmity among Armenians.

Conclusion

The main object of this paper, which tries to understand the psychological dynamics of Turkish-Armenian issue, is to examine the psychological dynamics operating within the policies and group identity of Armenian side rather then Turkish side. In order for a broad and comprehensive evaluation of the issue, psychological factors affecting the Turkish side should also be taken into account, because transactional, reciprocal and interactive processes take place in international system, like in all other systems. Thus the analysis, which does not take two sides into account, will be incomplete to understand the whole. In addition, it would be non-sense to state that all the factors affecting the Turkish side are de facto. Some characteristics related to the group identity of Turkish side have maintaining effect for the Armenian-Turkish issue as well. These characteristics and related psychological dynamics should be explored in another paper, which will complete this review.

The main argument in this paper is that the reality in international relations can be biased by many psychological mechanisms. There are some ancient psychological mechanisms and dynamics behind the demands of “Armenian genocide” recognition, not the reality.

These psychological mechanisms operating behind the conflictive structure of Turkish- Armenian relations provide important tools for archeological digging up for the etiology of the problem. Full comprehension of this problem, which is seen as affecting the international relations as well, can be possible only by means of taking human factor into account. Rather then reality, humans’, groups’, or nations’ “perceived” reality make strong influence on the policies. In international system, where macro actors’ manipulations have important effects basically, the human factor may cause unexpected effects occasionally, and sometimes these psychological backgrounds and resources can be used and controlled by the macro actors in direction with their benefits. The victimization psychology and group identity, which have become fully developed fifty years ago, operating in the Armenian group psychology, function as a manipulation tool in the political maneuvers of these international actors intentionally or unconsciously.

Turkey needs to develop the more efficient way and more skillful ability to deal with Armenian side’s projections of threat and enmity in order to get a better position in the political circumstances related to the Turkish- Armenian issue. This cannot be achieved through reactive and polarizing policies. On the other hand, it cannot be realized by excusing and accepting approaches as well. Understanding of this issue should get rid off from the duality of either accepting or rejecting the “Armenian genocide” hypothesis. The new policy style should be reframed around the awareness that there are important psychological mechanisms operating within the Turkish-Armenian issue and they have potential to distort the reality. The other part of this new policy should contain various methods of influencing the actors and making them to accept this point of view inside and outside of Turkey.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Clinical Psychologist, MA, ASAM Political Psychology Specialist, e-mail: sgoral@asam.org.tr
[1] F. Sevinç Göral, “Siyaset Bilimi ve Uluslararası İlişkilerde Siyaset Psikolojisi”, Stratejik Analiz, Vol 5, Iss. 59, March 2005, ss.77-82.
[2] Valarie M. Hudson and Christopher S. Vore, “Dış Politika Analizinin Dünü, Bugünü ve Yarını”, Erol Göka and Işık Kuşçu (in ed.), Uluslararası İlişkilerin Psikolojisi, ASAM Yayınları, Ankara, 2002.
[3] Herbert Kelman and Ronald Fisher, “Conflict Analysis and Resolution”, David Sears, Leonie Huddy and Robert Jervis (in ed.), Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, Oxford University Press, New York, 2003, pp. 316- 320.
[4] Vamık D. Volkan, “Uluslararası İlişkilerde Psikanaliz ve Psikanalizde Uluslararası İlişkiler 1: Psikanaliz ve Diplomasi Arası İşbirliğinde Engeller”, (Translation: F. Sevinç Göral), Stratejik Analiz, Vol 6, Iss. 62, June 2005, ss. 52-57.
[5] Nuri Bilgin, Siyaset ve İnsan, Bağlam Yayınları, İstanbul, 1997, pp. 92- 98.
[6] Erol Göka, “Ermeni Sorunu’nun (Gözden Kaçan) Psikolojik Boyutu”, Ermeni Araştırmaları, Cilt 1, (Mart, 2001), p. 131.
[7] Erol Göka, “Ermeni Diasporasının Psikolojisi”, Ermeni Araştırmaları 1. Türkiye Kongresi Bildirileri, Vol. 3, ASAM Yayınları, Ankara, 20-21 Nisan 2002, p. 43.
[8] İbrahim Kaya, “The Holocoust and Armenian Case: Highlighting the Main Differences”, Armenian Studies, A Quarterly Journal of History, Politics and International Relations, Vol. 4, pp. 274- 295.
[9] Haluk Özdemir, “Diaspora Ararat’ı Ararken: Ermeni Kimliği ve Soykırım İddiaları”, Ermeni Araştırmaları, Vol. 4, Iss. 14- 15, pp. 75- 97; Laçiner, “Ermeni..., pp. 13- 25; Erol Göka, “Ermeni Diasporasının ..., pp. 39- 46; Erol Göka, “Ermeni Sorununun..., pp. 128- 136; Ömer E. Lütem, Ermeni Sorunu, Seminar presented in CESS, 21 Temmuz 2005.
[10] Sedat Laçiner, “Ermeni Sorunu’nun Temel Unsurları Olarak Ermeni Kimlik Bunalımı ve Güç Politikaları”, Ermeni Araştırmaları 1. Türkiye Kongresi Bildirileri, Vol. 3, ASAM Yayınları, Ankara, 20-21 April 2002, p. 20.
[11] Sedat Laçiner, Türk Ermeni İlişkileri, Kaknüs Yayınları, İstanbul, 2004, pp. 237- 246.
[12] Vamık D. Volkan, Kanbağı Etnik Gururdan Etnik Teröre, Bağlam Yayınları, İstanbul, 1999, p. 40.
[13] Vamık D. Volkan, Politik Psikoloji, Ankara Üniversitesi Yayınları, Ankara, 1993, p. 70.
[14] Vamık D. Volkan, Bloodlines: From Ethnic Pride to Ethnic Terrorism, Westview Press, Colorado, 1997, p. 43.
[15] Vamık D. Volkan, “Psychoanalysis and History”, Psychoanalytic View 2:History of the Person, History of the World Symposia, 24- 26 April 2004, İstanbul.
[16] Vamık Volkan gave the example of time collapse that Milosevic and his followers showed around the bones of Lazar, who is a Serbian prince, has been killed in Kosovo War in 1389 by the Ottomans. Milosevic have dug and get the bones of Lazar out of the grave in the 600th anniversary of this war. The bones have been carried from village to village and city to city throughout the country. This was the beginning of the process causing the genocide of Muslims in Bosnia Herzegovina. For more detailed examination, look at Volkan, Kanbağı..., pp. 65-100. In addition, it is known that monuments, literature, film and cinema industry can be used to maintain feelings of we-ness and group identity alive and powerful for certain purposes by using chosen traumas.
[17] Frehat Kentel ve Gevorg Poghosyan, Ermenistan ve Türkiye Vatandaşları Karşılıklı Algılama Projesi, Erivan, İstanbul, 2005, TESEVweb site, http://www.tesev.org.tr/etkinlik/Turk_ermeni_rapor.pdf
[18] Kentel ve Poghosyan, Ermenistan... p. 18.
[19] Kentel ve Poghosyan, Ermenistan... pp. 11-12.
[20] Kentel ve Poghosyan, Ermenistan... pp. 16-18.
[21] Projection: It is one of the defense mechanisms that human beings use during the early development. The infant projects unwanted negative mental representations, which are not integrated into a whole object yet, to outside in order to get rid of the destructiveness of his/ her aggressive impulses and to survive. He/she experiences them as they come from outside. Human projects its own destructiveness and badness to outside and creates an illusive perception that “the bad and evil is he / she / it, not me”. The projection has important functions in the construction and development of being a nation as well. The group needs to project its bad parts onto other and to create an enemy outside in order to set the feelings of we-ness, to gathering around shared and idealized issues. For more detailed information, look at, Erol Göka, F. Sevinç Göral and F. Volkan Yüksel, “Birbirimize Ne Yapıyoruz? İnsan İlişkilerini Kavramanın Bir Aracı Olarak Yansıtmalı Özdeşim”, Avrasya Dosyası, Vol 10, No. 1, Spring 2004, pp. 279-314.
[22] Kentel ve Poghosyan, Ermenistan... p. 27.
[23] Kentel ve Poghosyan, Ermenistan... pp. 28-29
[24] Kentel ve Poghosyan, Ermenistan... p. 29.
[25] Kentel ve Poghosyan, Ermenistan... p. 33.

Armenian Question in a Psychological Context

2009-05-12T17:06:00.001+10:00

The Psychological Dimension of the Armenian Problem (the unnoticed side) (summary of the Turkish Article)

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Erol GÖKA*

This article will explain the unnoticed psychological dimension of the Armenian problem in order to facilitate the study of the subject.

Armenians are claiming that they have been victims of a genocide. As oppose to this, the Turks are stating that there is no "genocide" as the result of a premeditated policy. During World War I, a civil war had occurred as the Armenians collaborated with the enemy and fought against state forces. The displacement policy has been adopted as a measure to overcome that situation.

The Armenians at present are full of hatred towards the Turks. After World War I, they have murdered the leaders of the Union and Progress Party and much later on assassinated Turkish diplomats during the years 1970 and 1980.

Besides terrorism, the main activity of the Armenian diaspora is concentrated on the recognition of the Armenian "genocide". The recent increase of the Western countries’ recognition of that "genocide" is due to the activities financially supported by the diaspora Armenians. Every decision that has been adopted on that subject causes great tension between the concerned country and Turkey, also negatively affecting Turkey-Armenia relations. On the other hand, the claims on compensation and territorial demands could cause dangerous tensions between the two countries.

Caucasia’s jeo-stratejic and geo-economic importance plays a great role for putting forward the Armenian issue on today’s agenda. Apart from this, there is the psychological dimension of the issue that has been unnoticed until now.

The Jewish holocaust constitutes the frame of this issue. This holocaust has caused for generations a victimization and a sense of guilt among Western Christian countries and especially among the Germans. Some try to take advantage of victimization since it is accepted to be a positive condition by the public opinion. This pseudo-victimization should be prevented, otherwise the parliaments and the international law courts of justice will be full of "genocide" claims.

Under the victimisation psychology lies the "excuse psychology". To claim that Hitler learned to commit genocide from the Turks is equivalent to saying that "We do not do such things, we have learned this from the Turks". That kind of thoughts leads to excuse himself and to get rid of his own sins. In such a situation it is the real victims who will suffer. The Israelis who support the Armenian "genocide" could be a good example in this case.

Saying that Hitler is not a first degree culprit, supports the thesis that Armenians founded the first Christian state. This is in fact the Western Christian conscience which takes advantage of the Armenians to absolve himself.

The Armenian diaspora is in a real identity crises and is trying to cure this by a victimization psychology and by hostility towards the Turks. The second and the following generations of the diaspora Armenians have never seen Turkey. Consequently their hostility is based on imagination rather than reality thus this leads to deeper feelings of enmity. The first Armenian generation who had suffered is not so deeply opposed to Turks.

The Turks and the Armenians should realize that by emphasizing their respective negativeness, they are kept in constant conflicting status.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Head of Psychiatry Clinic at Numune Education and Research Hospital, member of ASAM.

Interview with Samuel A. Weems: Fabricated Armenian Genocide...

2009-05-11T17:58:00.007+10:00

The Truth about Fabricated Armenian Scottish American Christian Author Reveals The Truth about Fabricated Armenian Genocide Claims.

Exclusive interview with Samuel A. Weems, author of "Armenia:The Great Deception-Secrets of a 'Christian' Terrorist State."

The book by Samuel A. Weems, the author provides evidence that Armenians have in the past, and still today, continue to play the Christian versus Muslim religion-race-ethnic card with great success, regardless of truth.

The author seeks to expose the selfish and wrong actions by the state of Armenia and demonstrate how this country obtains foreign aid from Christian nations and funding by Christian churches. Weems states that foreign aid is the number one import of this state, and terrorism is its number one export. The book answers many questions and is the first work that has researched the Armenian Apostolic Church and its leadership role in state sponsored terrorism.

The author of "Armenia: The Great Deception-Secrets of a 'Christian' Terrorist State" uses evidence derived from Armenian historians, as well as American, British and Russian eyewitnesses. It also describes how Armenian dictators have misled their own people, and how Armenia has fought against and opposed the United States War on Terrorism for its own self-interests.

TDN: What are the causes of modern-day Armenian terrorism?

WEEMS: I think there are two basic root causes of modern-day Armenian terrorism. First, even though the Armenian Church claims to be the oldest official state church in the world, there is no separation of church and state.
The Armenian Church has been an active partner in state sponsored terrorism, dating back to the 1890s and earlier. The second root cause of modern-day Armenian terrorism is the political structure in Armenia that also dates back to 1890.
Politics and state-sponsored terrorism are one, beginning with the Bell (Hinchak) and Armenian Revolutionary Federation's (Dashnak) statement of purpose. These official terrorist policies continue to this day.

TDN: It has been reported that the Armenian members of the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Committee withdrew from talks because of threats. Do you know why the Armenian committee members withdrew?

WEEMS: I have followed the activities of this committee closely. This committee was nothing more than an Armenian scam and con job from day one! Armenians had an agenda and this is why they agreed to a six-member Turkish Committee with only four Armenians.
The Armenian members, from day one, claimed that it was an established fact there was a genocide of 1.5 Million Armenians in 1915 and that Turkey must pay reparations of money and land to Armenia. The reason the Armenians wanted a 6 to 4 Turkish Committee majority was because they thought they could convince the Turkish majority into agreeing to have an American Institution make a determination, that the 1948 United Nations Jewish findings of fact would also apply to their alleged 1915 genocide. Had the Armenians been able to talk their way into such a finding by a committee that was majority Turkish, they would have achieved two things to use to create pro-Armenian/anti-Turk world opinion:
First, that a handpicked United States institution had made a finding that there was a genocide equal to the Jewish Genocide UN findings of 1948. Second, that a majority Turkish Committee had arranged for such a determination.
In my view, there were never real threats by Armenians to the Armenian Committee members. Such claims were made to divert attention in an effort to deceive the Turkish members.

TDN: Has the U.S. political system been used by ethnic lobbies for the interests of Armenia?

WEEMS: Yes! Armenians established in the United States, what they called their "Armenian Colony," in about 1918. Armenia sent thousands of their citizens to the United States to lobby America for money and support from individual Christians, Christian churches and the U.S. Government. This Armenian lobby has been most successful and continues its activities to this day. The reason for their success is because they play the ethnic race/Christian versus Muslim cards so well. The Armenians know that there is no "Muslim" lobby to refute and oppose them.

TDN: Do you have personal knowledge that Armenian Americans place their special interests above vital U.S. interests?

WEEMS: Yes! Here is but one example of proof certain that Armenian-Americans do such things. President Bush stated after September 11th that it was in the best interest of the United States to reach out and build friendships throughout the Muslim world.
One such Muslim country the President reached out to was Azerbaijan. Armenian American politicians objected and fought the President's effort to establish normal relations with Azerbaijan. Why? Because the Armenian lobby had been successful in getting the U.S. Congress to cut foreign aid to Azerbaijan after the Armenians' sneak, surprise, cowardly and unprovoked attack on Azerbaijan in 1992.
Armenian American special interests were fearful that a new U.S.-Azerbaijan friendship would became strong and Armenia fears such a friendship and partnership. Thus Armenia fought the United States "War on Terrorism" rather than permit America's building friendships in the Muslim world. Selfish-Yes! Anti-Muslim-Yes! Against the best interests of the United States-Yes!

TDN: Why has Armenia received so much aid from the U.S. Government?

WEEMS: As I tried to explain in my previous answer, because the Armenians have been seeking aid from Christians, Churches and the U.S. Government dating back to 1918. The Armenians play the Christian card and there is no one from the Muslim world to show that the Armenians are terrorists!

TDN: While the U.S. has been supporting Armenia, has Armenian foreign policy supported U.S. interests, especially in the region?

WEEMS: No. The only Armenian foreign policy I know of is this: The number one export of Armenia is terrorism. The number one import of Armenia is foreign aid. Neither of these two policies of Armenia is in the best interests of the U.S.

TDN: Although Armenia is illegally occupying Azerbaijan territory, why hasn't the U.S. placed sanctions on Armenia as it did on Azerbaijan?

WEEMS: I am ashamed of my country's foreign policy on this question. The real answer is; Armenia claims to be Christian like the United States while Azerbaijan is Muslim.
There is a cynical well - financed Armenian - American lobby as compared to Muslim Azerbaijan that has no real lobby. This is sad but true and American Christians must become aware of how they are being fleeced and deceived by Armenians. It is neither fair nor just. This isn't Christian !.

TDN: Do you think Armenians have territorial ambitions against Turkey?

WEEMS: There is no doubt that Armenia has territorial ambitions against Turkey. Let me repeat that: There is absolutely no doubt that Armenia has territorial ambitions against Turkey! Why do I make such a direct and absolute statement ?.
Read the statements of the Armenian Reconciliation Committee, read the statements of ANCA, The Armenian National Committee of America, read the statements that Armenian historians make about "Armenian Turkey" and the "Armenian Plateau" in their books.

TDN: What other countries have been giving aid to Armenia and why?

WEEMS: Russia and the European Christian nations. Why? Because the Armenians have been playing the Christian vs. Muslim card so well since 1918.

TDN: Can you please describe religious tolerance in Armenia?

WEEMS: There is no religious tolerance in Armenia. Well, that is unless one is a member of the Apostolic Church in Armenia. The Church of Armenia practices Christianity as the Catholic Church did in the dark ages of history. There is persecution of all Christians other than the Church of Armenia.
As in the dark ages, the Armenian Church excommunicates Armenians and condemns their souls to hell if they take part in other branches of the Christian faith. This is one of the problems of Armenians. They live in the dark ages of today's modern world. Such religious attitude is not helpful to world peace. In depth information is given on this subject in my upcoming book.

TDN: Can you compare how different faiths practice their religions in Armenia and Turkey?

WEEMS: I spent eight weeks in Turkey in August and September producing the "Seven Churches of Revelation" video, as I described earlier. I end my video by showing how Christianity is alive and well in Turkey. There are more than 100 Christian churches in Istanbul alone.
I picked one to use as an example of all to show the total freedom of religion that everyone enjoys in Turkey. I visited several Armenian Churches and interviewed Armenian Christians. I did have experiences when I tried to visit inside of few Armenian Churches and was not allowed to enter. I have a total list of every Armenian Church in the world. There are several more Armenian churches in Turkey than there are in Armenia. In each interview I had with Armenian Christians who live in Istanbul, people stated that they had total religious freedom practicing what they believe.
Contrast the total religious freedom Armenians enjoy in Turkey to the fact there is no religious freedom nor tolerance for Muslims or other branches of Christianity other than their church in Armenia.
According to the United States State Department and religious sources I reveal in my book, there is not one, let me repeat not one mosque allowed to operate on a regular basis in Armenia.
Another interesting fact is that almost 95% of Armenians are now ethnically pure today. Clearly the Armenians learned well from the Nazis they served so faithfully during World War II. They are working to create an ethnically pure society. History has proven over and over again that ethnic-pure societies are a threat to mankind. Case in point in modern history is Hitler's Germany. It is so sad that Armenians were total partners with the Nazis of World War II, and they are attempting to recreate such days of horror by their ethnic cleansing work of Muslim Azerbaijan. The Armenians are not following the teachings of Christ with whom they claim to have followed and served for 1700 years. Christ never approved of ethnic cleansing of Jews, Muslims or anyone else. The Armenians are ethnic-cleansing even the other Christians in order to have a totally "Armenian Church" pure state! They are creating their own brand of religion just as the Nazis did.

TDN: Many Turkish people are surprised to discover that American-Armenians have a great deal of hatred for Turks. The same hatred is fueled in many Armenian communities such as in France. What are the reasons for this?

WEEMS: My research shows that there is clearly an Armenian Mastermind Plan that generates Armenian hate around the world. In my view the Armenian Church in Diaspora teaches this hate from birth. A baby is not born to hate, they are taught to carry it.

TDN: Do you think it would be more effective to discuss these issues and problems with the Armenian Diaspora, or to deal with Armenian officials?

WEEMS: I believe that neither is going to work until the Armenian Church begins to practice the teachings of Jesus Christ. Until that happens, Turkey will waste time and create false hope of ever negotiating with Armenia about anything.
Armenia wants billions of American dollars and Turkish lands, what is there to negotiate? Armenia demanded those same things at the Allied Peace Conference after World War I. Armenians demanded that the Ottoman Government give them money and land based on their bogus one-sided massacre claims.
The Paris Peace conference heard the Armenians wild claims in 1919 and gave them zero-nothing! Today, 83 years later, the Armenians are demanding that Turkey give them billions of dollars and Turkish lands. Such a claim, in plain language, is crazy. It was bogus at the end of World War I, when the Paris Peace Conference rejected it, and it is still bogus today !.
I would hope that we will see a climate of change take place within Armenia in the near future, because I strongly believe that it is in Armenia's best interests to have peace. There is something here that readers need to also know. Not all of the Armenians who live in Armenia are siding with Armenian terrorism, and I think that the hope of peace lies in those people's hearts and minds.
I have already received letters from Armenians who explained to me that they were not siding and approving Armenian terrorism. They are plain folks and they do suffer from their country's instability, its policies and Armenian American lobbyist actions.

TDN: If these issues continue to provoke nationalism both in Armenia and Turkey, and pose an obstacle to regional peace and stability, what role could the U.S. play?

WEEMS: Turks need to answer that question themselves. How much do you know about Armenian Americans' lobbying activities that are going on in the U.S.A.? Have you taken any action to defend the accusations directed at your country? Have you written to anybody about it? How will the U.S. Congress know you are right in your case, if you never show up and talk about it? Or at least, find the truth out for yourselves first and know that your ancestors did not commit such a crime. Turkey has been a true friend of the United States since the great leader of yours Ataturk established democracy in Turkey in 1923 and a strong NATO ally since 1952. I believe since then there has been an unbroken line of friendship and partnership between Turkey and the U.S. Then there are Armenian Americans. But be careful; I'm talking about the Diaspora here, not the ones who live, without a single doubt, happily and peacefully in Turkey. The Diaspora have mooched, begged, whined, and complained since 1918 to anyone who would listen. First the Armenians betrayed the Ottomans and joined the Russians.
Next, the Armenians betrayed the Allies of World War I, cut a deal and joined the Soviet Union without firing a shot. Then the Armenians betrayed the Russians and joined the Nazis. Thereafter the Armenians tried to join the Allies then went back to the Russians.
You judge what kind of troublesome and back stabbing nation that is.There are some 65 to 70 million Turks living only in Turkey. There are only 2.7 million Armenians left in Armenia. It is a tiny land-locked country. More than one million Armenians escaped to Russia, Turkey, and other places during the past ten years.
I do not believe that the United States has any business with such unreliable, unpredictable bunch of people in such an unstable territory of the world, which, over the next 20 years, will fade away and become a footnote on the pages of history if left to themselves.

TDN: You have mentioned that Armenia is always in want of money. Do you think the allegations of genocide are a way for Armenia to get territory and money from Turkey?

WEEMS: Yes, I do. Just look at their activities, plans, announcements, statements of their media in Europe and the U.S.A. and you will see that it is one of the major goals of their lobbies outside Turkey. They are actively and tirelessly working on telling their tall tales all over the U.S. and Europe. Let me be honestly crystal clear to your readers: Armenians want an acknowledgement, an apology, monetary reparations, and land, in that order. This 4-legged plan is written in every Armenian newspaper over the years and it is no secret. It seems rather strange to me that some, or most Turks, do not know this at all, or do not seem to take it seriously.
This evil Armenian plan looks serious to me, which is one of the reasons I wrote my upcoming book: "The secrets of a 'Christian' terrorist state".

TDN: Obviously the policies of the Armenian Government and actions of terrorist groups do not represent all Armenians. Are there large numbers of Armenians who are willing to put these controversial issues aside in order to end hostilities? Won't an attitude of aggression undermine Armenia's advancement as a successful democracy and fail to create good leaders?

WEEMS: The United States is the most open and free nation in the world. I know of no Armenian American who speaks out in opposition to Armenian terrorism. Of course there is a few percentage of Armenian Americans, especially the old generation, who do not approve of the escalating hostility toward Turkey. However, they do keep silent.
History records that when the Armenian Revolutionary Federation was organized, one of its Manifesto statements was to use terror against its own people who didn't toe the party line. I suspect this attitude continues today. And like I mentioned above, there are Armenians who do want peace and stability in their country, and do not want to fight with and terrorize Muslims. Sadly to say that Armenia has never been a democracy, but a dictatorship. Their so-called election recently is a complete fraud, just like the one in 1918. Look at the Armenian voter lists--Great increases in numbers while a million citizens fled the state! Armenia must rid itself of corrupt state and church leaders before there can be a start for real reforms.

TDN: The EU parliament, France, Italy and other countries have passed legislation accusing Turks of genocide. Can you please comment on the worldwide effort and campaign to have pro-Armenian genocide legislation passed in the parliaments of various countries?

WEEMS: This is nothing more than playing the same old "Christian versus Muslim" ethnic/race/religion cards by Armenia. The motive behind these meaningless resolutions is to put pressure on Turkey to give Armenia billions of dollars and lots of Turkish lands. When one thinks about it, reads the historical accounts, he or she will find out for themselves that there was no such genocide.
My question is why should any nation on earth involve itself in this matter at all, since these allegations of a so-called genocide took place 87 years ago? The real answer to why some European countries passed meaningless resolutions of Armenian support is nothing more than the age old "Christian vs. Muslim" issue, and such things have no place in today's modern world which seeks peace and understanding of each others' different faiths.
I must note that history reflects that France and Italy were two of the countries seeking national advantages for themselves during World War I at the Turks' expense. I see that they are still playing the self-advantage game! No right thinking government, based on the conclusive evidence, can say with absolute certainty, as some European countries have done, that there was a genocide.

TDN: The international community adopted the term "genocide" in 1948. How have these elected officials legally defined genocide and applied it to the events around 1915, which Turks say were the result of war and deportation, in part triggered by uprisings of armed Armenians who allied with the enemies of the Ottoman Empire.

WEEMS: The truth is defined in the question! The "United Nations Convention for Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide" made a finding of the Jewish genocide on December 9, 1948. First of all the definition itself clearly proves that there was no "Armenian genocide!" The legal definition of genocide is this: "The systematic killing, or a program of action intended to destroy, a whole national or ethnic group."
The United Nations gives a very detailed definition of genocide. The true facts are, when the Ottoman government relocated the disloyal Armenians because they were using terrorist activities to help the invading Russians, there was no intention to destroy, in whole or in part the Armenians, and relocation cannot be considered as a genocide as the Armenians attempt to get the world to believe today.
The undisputed facts are that only Armenians in eastern Anatolia were removed. They were removed because they had joined with the Russians in trying to overthrow the Ottoman government. The absolute truth is that at least one million Armenians who lived in other regions of the Ottoman Empire were neither removed nor were they harmed in any way.
It is undisputed that the Armenians in eastern Anatolia were disloyal to the Ottoman government and were using armed force to try to overthrow it, by taking advantage of their churches' immunities, and we all know that the Ottomans never interrupted their freedom of religion.
The Ottoman government leaders even asked the head of the Armenian Church to help them stop the Armenian rebellion, or they would be forced to remove the Armenians from behind their army. The Armenian head priest refused this request for help and the Ottomans thereafter removed the Armenians. The Armenians in eastern Anatolia paid a terrible price because their church refused to help them when they could have done so. This church refusal is a major factor in causing the terrible removal of the eastern Anatolia Armenians.
Compare what the Ottoman government did to what my own United States government did at the start of World War II. Japan had made a sneak, surprise, cowardly, and unprovoked attack on U.S. naval forces at Pearl Harbor.
The U.S. government, on short notice with great personal loss, removed every Japanese American from the West Coast of the United States and moved them inland. These Japanese Americans were placed in military guarded camps until the end of the war. This was done to protect the American national interests during a war.
Just think, there was no evidence that Japanese Americans were disloyal to the United States. Compare this fact to the Armenians and there is no question but that they were not only disloyal, they were also engaged in an armed rebellion.
It is "silly" to claim that the Turks massacred 1.5 million Armenians! True facts are clear by both American and British eyewitnesses: there was no massacre nor was there a genocide.
In my research I discovered that even the Armenian chief historian uses two sets of books. What I mean by that is the Armenians use the same numbers to count in one of their revisions of history a massacre. Then, in another revision of history, they use the same numbers to count refugees! I choose to believe the American and British eyewitnesses' accounts and the set of books the Armenians use to count refugees. Therefore there could not have been a massacre as they claim !.

TDN: From your research do you see any links between hatred and terrorism?

WEEMS: Sadly to say, with the Armenians hatred and terrorism appear to be one and the same.

TDN: Do the allegations increase prejudice against Turkey and have Turkish-American relations been effected by the allegations of genocide made by Armenians?

WEEMS: I am sorry to say-yes, this is correct. I am also sorry to say that the reason so many Americans believe this Armenian tall tale is because the Turks have ignored these false claims for all these years and no one has stood up to tell the truth about the bogus genocide claim.
There is an old political saying in America: "If you tell a lie big enough and often enough and no one challenges you-a great number of people will believe the lie no matter how big it is."
This is what the Armenians have been doing since 1918 and the Turks have not come to America and disproved it. In the last few years, though, I have noticed some increased level of activities among Turkish Americans, especially with the emergence of Turkish Forum, a cyberspace think-tank. They seem to respond to anti-Turkish allegations almost instantly and wage spirited counter campaigns. Turkish Forum letters are signed by Turks from the U.S.A., Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia, which is impressive. They do a great job in publishing information to the Turkish Community around the world and by tirelessly defending the cause of Turks.
I have great respect for individuals who work diligently every day to insure that the world knows the truth. While this is all good, it is not nearly enough. Turkish Forum needs more support and contribution from Turks to organize and spread truth to the United States and the world. More needs to be done by organized grass roots campaigns to counter the ongoing anti-Turkish efforts. If this isn't done, Americans will simply believe what they hear, especially if it is repeated often enough and never objected to. This is a fact of life. Hitler was right. Tell a lie a 1000 times and people will believe it if it is not refuted.
Turkey doesn't need to be subjected to the big lie and this is a major reason why I wrote the book and I hope that not only Americans start asking questions of the Armenians--I also hope the Turks will awake, stand tall, and fight the good fight of truth. The Turks are world famous for their fighting ability.
I have a family member who fought next to Turks in Korea. He recalls how the North Koreans were very fearful of facing the Turk fighting man. It is time now for the Armenians and others to become fearful of facing the realities and the Turk on the stage of world opinion !.

TDN: Have you met with leaders and members of the Armenian communities in Turkey? Can you compare their life and status as a minority in Turkey with that of the status of minorities in Armenia?

WEEMS: I have visited with Armenians in Turkey. They live very well and have the same total freedoms that Turks enjoy. It appears that many Armenians, who live in Turkey, especially the ones who live in the big cities are well off financially and they live prosperous and peaceful lives. Many own good businesses and are in total harmony with Turks.
On the subject of minorities in Armenia, there are only about 5% minorities left in Armenia. There are only a small handful of Muslims remaining and they are forbidden to practice their religion. There is no way to compare except to say that Armenians living in Istanbul, for example, live in the sunlight of a modern world. What few Muslims who remain in Armenia live in is the blackness of a moonless cloudy night of the dark ages of past history, many hundreds of years ago.

TDN: Many U.S. State legislatures have passed laws that support the "Armenian Genocide" allegations. Do you think they are adequately informed about Armenian history? Can such legislation have an effect on U.S. diplomacy in the future? Do you think it could become a criminal act in the U.S. for making contrary remarks, just like in France where a well-known American professor was taken to court and fined? What state laws might be applied if one denies an "Armenian genocide" took place?

WEEMS: Permit me to explain these "laws." First of all not one of the U.S. state legislative acts has any power or force of law. All these state legislatures have passed are "Resolutions" that are worthless and have no legal meaning !.
These "Resolutions" express the thoughts of the elective officials. A law can be enforced while a resolution has no such power. These "Resolutions" are worthless and meaningless as far as the some solid actual laws are concerned.
Of course these elective state legislators are not informed, nor do they know either Armenian or Turkish history. These worthless resolutions are brought to them by Armenian Americans who whine, beg and moan as they tell their tall tale of how the terrible Turk massacred 1.5 million of their Christian forefathers in 1915. Only a very few Turks ever try to present the truth and they are not organized as the Armenians are. The purpose of the state "resolutions" is to influence American foreign policy to give Armenians more and more American taxpayer dollars. They pass their resolutions and claim a vast majority of Americans who support them. This is a lie, but it is effective! What the French do could not happen in the United States. The United States Constitution guarantees total freedom of speech. Congress shall pass no law to take this basic freedom away from the people. If any American doesn't like any law he or she has the absolute right to speak out to oppose it.

TDN: Do you think an atmosphere has been created in the U.S. where students and academics are reluctant to study these topics and think freely?

WEEMS: Yes, I do. No question about it! Case in point, as I mentioned earlier, is an American professor's home was bombed because he spoke about the horror of Armenian actions.
I know a well-known professor of history who was afraid to do a specific research project while working on his Ph.D. degree because of fear of Armenian professors! I know of other terrible Armenian American educators who pressure students and other professors in our colleges and universities. Such conduct in my judgment is unacceptable and it clearly is un-American !.

TDN: Last April President Bush stated 1.5 million Armenians were annihilated. How do you think this figure was determined?

WEEMS: Armenian Americans gave him this number! Armenian Americans buy influence especially within the Republican Party. Case in point: Elizabeth Dole, wife of former Senator Bob Dole, is running for the United States Senate in North Carolina.
She recently went to California for a large fund raising dinner sponsored by Armenian Americans. Question: What business does a gaggle of California Armenian Americans have in giving many tens of millions of dollars to a possible new United State Senator from North Caroline ?.
This is typical Armenian American tactics and this is how they buy influence and access to important elected United States elective officials. The Turkish American community is not so organized, and don't do much organized grassroots action work like the Armenians do.
Thus the Armenians have the playing field almost all to themselves and this is why Turks see an American president making such dumb comments even if history proves such statements are untrue.

TDN: As an American how do you feel about the fact the textbooks of school children are incorporating biased, inaccurate, and distorted information about the history of Armenians? Turks see this as brainwashing of American children, how would you describe it? How can this sort of misinformation be countered, in addition to attempts to tarnish the image of Turks, such as with the new Armenian-backed anti-Turkish film "Ararat"?

WEEMS: It is brainwashing and it is the work of Armenians! You have to give the Armenians credit for boldness. Consider the fact that Armenian members of the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Committee even wanted the children of Turkey to be taught that there was genocide as they do in a few states here in the United States. To make certain the children were taught properly the Armenians wanted Turkish children to be tested on an annual basis to make certain they believed there was genocide.
The fact that Armenian Americans have secured approval from some state education departments and teach that the Turks committed the first genocide in the 20th century is one very good reason for the Turks to now stand up and tell truth and get involved.
If the Turks don't and the Armenian Americans get all 50 American states to teach this, the next generation of Americans will believe this tall tale. This will not help Turkey at all in the years to come !.
I do not agree with this Armenian revision of history to fit their goals by teaching children to believe Armenian historical revision lies! I don't think a vast majority of Americans will like it either once they find out what Armenians have done.
The Turks must produce their own films for the American market. Again, the Turks must get organized and support, with their liras, the efforts of Turkish Americans if this great wrong is to be made right.

TDN: The Elian Gonzalez case in Florida seems to be a precedent in U.S. history where an ethnic lobby so blatantly resisted the U.S. justice system. Do you think defiant lobbies could pose problems in the future?

WEEMS: In this case the American justice system won. There may be resistance by some groups in the future, but that is unlikely. I don't expect Armenians to ever do such a thing. There are only about one million of them out of the some 285 million of other nationalities in the U.S.
The Armenian way has always been by sneak-back room attacks in the black of night. I expect them to continue these tactics.

TDN: Some Armenian groups in California have lobbied for lighter sentences for terrorist acts. How do you think the developments after September 11 might affect the attitudes of such groups?

WEEMS: The Armenian Americans will just keep on keeping on begging and mooching money to try to turn this terrorist murderer, Hampig Sassoonian, back out on American streets !.
Even though the Armenian American terrorist has had his day in court, had the best legal defense money could buy, California found him guilty and said he must serve a life sentence.
Armenian Americans today have raised more than $300,000, all trying to get him out of prison to walk the streets again. Most Americans would not approve of this conduct if they knew it !.

TDN: Can you please explain how your background as a state prosecutor has helped you to write this book?

WEEMS: Two things: Good research skills and the habit of always looking to tie events together to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt. I used perhaps as much as nearly 90% research from Armenian sources to write my book. One clue would lead me to another, and then to another, and I simply developed my book point by point.
Permit me to share one example: On the second page of his Armenian history book, an Armenian professor stated there were two million Armenians living within the Ottoman Empire in 1915. Strangely later he claims more than 1 million of this number were massacred by the Turks. In another book, the good professor provides numbers to prove that there were about the same number of Armenian refugees as the original population, thus disproving his own genocide claims. I didn't have to do anything to prove or disprove genocide.
I let the good Armenian professor do the documentation. I just pointed to the obvious, blaring discrepancies. The proof is that about half of the Armenians living within the Ottoman Empire didn't live in the war zone in Anatolia, and were not removed. This good professor listed footnotes and when I checked them out I discovered that there were several American and British eyewitnesses. All I did was to total the numbers supplied by the Armenian historian and his numbers simply didn't add up! I also then went to British, French, Russian and Italian historical numbers, also listed by the Armenian historian. When you take all the numbers together plus the American and British eyewitnesses, there it is, plain as day, there was no genocide and there is proof that the Armenians cooked the books and counted people removed as both massacred and as refugees.
When they wanted pity, money and reparation, all these refuges were "killed"; but when it was time to prove to the West that Armenians did have numbers to establish a state of their own, all of those "dead" refugees, all of a sudden, very strangely came back to life !!. Magic !.

TDN: It was not until the last few minutes before a vote on the Armenian genocide that the speaker of the House of Representatives withdrew the proposed legislation because it could harm U.S. national security. Isn't this process confusing for legislators and risky for the U.S. to allow such proposed legislation to advance to such a point? Some lawmakers believe that they were being asked to ignore historical fact because it complicated foreign policy. How do you interpret the developments above and their effects on lawmakers?

WEEMS: The truth is the Republican Speaker of the House attempted to save face by making a claim of national security when he withdrew the resolution. The rest of the story and the truth is that the Speaker didn't have the votes to pass it, and this is why he withdrew it !.
There is a hardcore group of Republicans; I call them extremists, who could not care less about national security if they could have passed the resolution. They had been bought and paid for with Armenian American political campaign money, just like the Armenian Americans are trying to buy Mrs. Dole in North Carolina.
One basic fact must be remembered. The Republican members of Congress were trying to pass a "Resolution." A Resolution has no force of law and does nothing but express an opinion. It is not a law as such.
In truth such a Resolution is meaningless and isn't worth the paper it is written on because it couldn't do anything except make Armenians feel good.
Of course had such a Resolution passed, the Armenians would have had a feeding frenzy, trying to use it to get more money out of the American Congress as well as trying to force Turkey to give in and buy them off for a while with lira and land.
What is so odd to me is the fact Turkey and the United States are good trading partners. The two countries did more than 7 billion dollars of trade with each other just last year. Turkey bought more than one billion dollars more in the U.S. than we did in Turkey. And what about the Armenians ? Almost zero !. Again Armenia's number one export is terrorism and their number one import is foreign aid.

TDN: How successfully or poorly has the Turkish government, public, and Turkish Americans responded to the allegations of genocide?

WEEMS: I know a few Turkish Americans who are true champions for Turkey. The sad truth is that they are too few and they have little funding to compete against a well-oiled and funded Armenian lobby organization.
The Armenians have perhaps 40-50 full time professionals in Washington D.C. doing nothing but working each and every day to undercut Turkey and Azerbaijan and promote themselves for more foreign aid taxpayer funding. Turkish Americans have 0 staff and office working for them in Washington, D.C. The Turks really should do more to protect themselves. All they have to do is tell the truth! Here is an eye-opening calculation: Armenians, in the last 10 years, have probably spent hundreds of millions of dollars to support all the political candidates that they did.
When those candidates got elected, Armenian got 1.4 billion dollars in the same 10 years as U.S. Foreign Aid. That is, for every one dollar Armenian Americans "invested," they got $100 back in U.S. aid to Armenia! 100 to 1 return! This is better return than Las Vegas casinos!
I strongly advise the Turkish Americans to wake up and Get involved!

TDN: What aspects of your book do you expect Armenians will criticize most?

WEEMS: How about the front cover, the back cover, and every word in between! They have already started. I received my first Armenian hate email just yesterday. The Armenian said my book was "lies, lies, lies" and was "nothing but Turkish revisionism". What makes this comment so interesting is the fact that this person made all those wild accusations about my book without even reading it yet, because it hasn't been printed as yet.
I expect Armenians to attack each and every word in my book. I also expect them to attack me with their off-the-wall comments. This has been the Armenian trademark since 1918. If anyone doesn't toe the line and say and do what Armenians want and demand, they are attacked.
They attacked soon to be United States President Hubert Hoover when he tried to help them at the end of World War I. Mr. Hoover didn't want to give U.S. dollars to corrupt dictators without checks and balances, to insure the money was used for the people. The Armenians, of course, didn't want any part of honesty, so they attacked him.
They attacked an American navy admiral and a U.S. Army colonel because these brave and honest American soldiers objected to Armenian misrepresentations, corruption and massacre tall tales. The Armenians attacked United States President Woodrow Wilson because he refused to give them Muslim land from "sea to sea" (that is from Trabzon in the Black Sea to Adana in the Mediterranean) and would not spend ¾ billion dollars and commit 70,000 American troops to clear the Muslim lands for Armenians.
Armenians attacked the United States Senate, because they refused to vote for an Armenian mandate in 1920. Had the Senate voted to send American troops to give Muslim lands to Armenians, the United States would have involved itself in its first Vietnam of the 20th century.
Armenians even attacked American Christians and missionaries because they didn't help them enough. Seems, as though they felt that $50 million dollars from the American Christian community was not enough. Another little known fact is that the Armenians borrowed another $50 million from the United States government in 1919, with promises to pay back.
Armenians cut a deal and became Communists in 1920 and said to the U.S., because they were now Communists, they didn't have to repay the loan.
Now, I will ask an accountant friend of mine to calculate for me just how much that $50 million is with all the interest, compounded over the years.
Some say it could reach billions of dollars. As an American taxpayer, I demand that Armenia pay back the loan to my country. That's my tax money they are sitting on. As you can see, I will be in good company each time an Armenian attacks me!

TDN: Are parts of the U.S. media biased, if so why, and what can be done?

WEEMS: There is no question but that some media is biased. However, it is not uncommon to read good travel articles about Turkey. I think the problem is that the 40-50 Armenian professionals who lobby the media, and the Turks don't.
This is a sad truth and only the Turks themselves can make a commitment, put their money where their mouth is, and provide an alternative to the present day one-sided Armenians who provide day after day slanted information. The Turks should be presenting truth rather than silence !. TDN: Your title "Armenia: The Great Deception-Secrets of a 'Christian' Terrorist State" may make many people uneasy. How did you decide this should be the title of your book? Do you think Muslims have a point when they say that the press does not label terrorists who are Christian as "Christian terrorists" (such as Timothy McVeigh, the unabomber, and Serbs who committed genocide in Srebrenica) but never fail to add Muslim if the terrorist is a Muslim ?.

WEEMS: This is not the title I used when I first began researching my book four years ago. However, as I did my research in Washington, D.C., Paris, Rome, Moscow and London, I found reference after reference, hundreds of them, about activities from the lowest priests to the head of the Armenian Church, and their direct involvement in what any Christian, or any fair minded person for that matter, would consider terrorist acts.
The first chapter on my book is also the last chapter I wrote and it is titled "Holy Terror." I explain in detail specific terrorist acts committed by officials of the Armenian Church as well as their political activity.
For a quick example, there is this episode in an Armenian church in Adana, just before the Armenian rebellion in Adana in 1909, I believe, where the top Armenian priest sermons to a packed audience "Sell your coat on your back if you have to and buy guns with it." Such open invitation to rebellion via armed violence so outrages an American priest, who happens to be there that day, he storms out of the church in anger ! I hope the book does make Christians uncomfortable! American Christians too often live in a comfort zone. They must discover the great truth for themselves.
I don't ask anyone to accept my book at face value. I ask only that American Christians read the book with an open mind and then study for themselves to find truth about Armenia. After Christians do their homework, and should they find for themselves that I am a truth teller, they must speak out and demand that their church and their government stop giving their hard-earned money to Armenia.
For any Christian to stand by and say nothing when truth is presented is to give approval to Armenian terrorism. It is just that simple!
Muslims have a valid complaint about the way the American media mentions "Muslim" to explain terrorism. This isn't fair, nor is it just, because they don't use "Christian" to describe Christian terrorists.
In all fairness, I must note there is a major effort being made within the United States after September 11th to make a big point of the fact that Muslim extremists do not represent a vast majority of the Muslim world.
Personally, based on my experiences with the 97%-98% Muslims of Turkey, I could not have been treated better even if I was a Christian. All Americans can learn from the Turks and respect everyone regardless of their religion.
The true test is what is in a person's heart: Give love and respect, and love and respect come back to you. I wish that Americans would follow this Turkish example of "Peace at home and peace in the world."
It is such a shame that Turkey's next door neighbor Armenia refuses to follow this great teaching of "Peace at home and peace in the world" also.
At the risk of sounding self-serving, let me reiterate here, that every Turk should read my book to understand how they were short changed by Armenian propaganda over the years.
I am planning to send free copies of my book to every Christian priest and minister in America, as my book sales can finance such efforts. I welcome help from Turkish business community to expedite this project.
The faster I can pass this message along to Church leaders in America, the faster attitudes in America will change to see the Turkish side of the story, as well as distance the average American from Armenian allegations.
Thank you for giving me this opportunity of sharing my thoughts. As I have traveled the great nation of Turkey over this past four years I have been received warmly everywhere I went. I appreciate the great heart of the Turks.
My only regret is that I could not openly travel in Armenia, nor could I receive cooperation in the Armenian national archives that are located in America. I believe that it is difficult to have peace in the Near East because Armenia is such a closed society. I hope this cold attitude will change in the years to come and neighbors can become real neighbors in the Near East.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Samuel Weems writes a regular newspaper column and has a great deal of experience in the political arena. He describes himself as a Scottish American, a life long Baptist and a taxpayer.
He has done extensive research in archives in Washington, London, Paris, Moscow, and Istanbul. He was elected one of one hundred delegates to rewrite his state's constitution. He served as an elected member of his city council.
He was also elected district attorney and a judge. While serving as a district attorney, he did extensive work in Washington D. C. to reform the nation's welfare and prison systems.

so be it...

Turks in Korean War

2009-05-11T17:58:00.006+10:00

To:
Subject: Re: Email about Turkish Brigade
From: "Harold Stockton"
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 20:21:25 -0600
References: <6.0.0.22.2.20040105161357.01cd48a0@korean-war.com> <002501c3d3e5$0cbb9f60$996cd444@fic400>
Reply-to: KOREAN-WAR-L@listproc.cc.ku.edu
Sender: owner-KOREAN-WAR-L@listproc.cc.ku.edu

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mooney,

Concerning the fighting abilities of the Turkish Brigade, here is what American officers said about that:

"In the course of the U.N. offensive and the Chinese counteroffensive, the 1st Turkish Brigade suffered 3,514 casualties, of which 741 were killed in action, 2,068 wounded, 163 missing and 244 taken prisoner, as well as 298 noncombatant casualties.

"The Turks, armed and trained by American military advisers, did better than even they had hoped or expected in this, their first real combat since World War I. The American units to which they were attached respected their skills and tenacity in combat. Some comments by American officers give insight into the Turks and their abilities. "They really prefer to be on the offensive
and handle it quite well," went one appraisal.

"They are not as good at defensive positions, and certainly never retreat." Another report told of their patrol skills: "Certain Turkish patrols always reported high body counts when they returned from patrols. Headquarters always scoffed at the high numbers, much higher in fact than any other unit, until the Turks decided to bring the enemy bodies back and dump them at headquarters for the body count.""
At: http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/TurkishBrigade.htm

This was written by A.K. Dawson and originally published in Military History Magazine December 1997. A.K. Dawson teaches history in Darwin, Australia.

And, "When ammunition ran low, the Brigade fixed bayonets and fought the enemy hand to hand. Today we honor that first of many battles fought by the Turkish Brigade in Korea. The Turkish Brigade went on to win two Distinguished Unit Citations for their gallantry during the Korean War."
Spoken by Ambassador W. Robert Pearson at the Wreath Laying at the Turkish Korean War Memorial on November 22, 2000.
At: http://usconsulate-istanbul.org.tr/korea/koreamb.html

Also on the same occasion, Major General Elmer D. Pendleton stated on
January 25, 2001 that:

"Finally I want to tell you two points about my thoughts of Turkish soldiers
because that's what this is all about:

A. As a soldier one of the things that i like about Turkish soldiers is that
they are trained to look you right in the eye.. No looking down at their
feet, no lack of confidence, but a feeling of pride in ones's self, one's
army and one's country..
B. Secondly, a popular American army song describing our army says it all
"it wasn't always easy and it wasn't always fair but when we were needed we
were there."

Life isn't always easy and it isn't always fair, but when the Turkish
brigade was needed you were there. On behalf of your American friends, thank
you."
At: http://usconsulate-istanbul.org.tr/korea/koreagp.html

And this same unit was to receive a Presidential Unit Citation for its war
efforts. On January 24, 2002, the date marks the 51st Anniversary of the
Turkish Brigade receiving America's presidential citation for valor for its
exemplary combat record during the Korean War and the second ceremony
honoring this occasion. Turkey is also the only nation to receive the
citation twice.

"The unit was deployed along a seven-mile front between I and IX Corps.
Enemy-held hills and Kumyangjang-ni fell to the Turkish Brigade through
bitter hand-to-hand combat. During the Korean War, 741 Turkish soldiers
died, 2,068 were wounded and 407 were missing in action. However, they
inflicted disproportionate casualties on the hostile forces, which reflected
the success of the Turkish contribution to the campaign." At:
http://korea50.army.mil/media/newsrelease/newsRelease_02-06.html

'Nuf said.

Harold Stockton

I now understand that the vote I gave in favor of assistance to Turkey was the most fitting vote I gave in my life. Courage, bravery and heroism are the greatest virtues which will sooner or later conquer. In this matter, I know no nation superior to the Turks." - Rose - U.S. Senator

The Turks are the hero of heroes. There is no impossibility for the Turkish Brigade."
- General Douglas MacArthur - United Nations Forces Commander in Chief

from http://www.korean-war.com

"4500 soldiers in the middle of the firing line have known how to create miracle. The sacrifices of the Turks will eternally remain in our minds." - Washington Tribune

"The courageous battles of the Turkish Brigade have created a favorable effect on the whole United Nations Forces." - Time

"The surprise of the Korean battles were not the Chinese but the Turks. It is impossible at this moment to find a word to describe the heroism which the Turks have shown in the battles." - Abent Post

"The Turks have shown in Kunuri a heroism worthy of their glorious history. The Turks have gained the admiration of the whole world through their glorious fighting in the battles." - Figaro

"The Turks who have been known throughout history by their courage and decency, have proved that they have kept these characteristics, in the war which the United Nations undertook in Korea." - Burner - U.S. Congressman

"There is no one left who does not know that the Turks, our valuable allies, are hard warriors and that they have accomplished very great feats at the front." - Claude Pepper, U.S. Senator

"I now understand that the vote I gave in favor of assistance to Turkey was the most fitting vote I gave in my life. Courage, bravery and heroism are the greatest virtues which will sooner or later conquer. In this matter, I know no nation superior to the Turks." - Rose - U.S. Senator

"While the Turks were for a long time fighting against the enemy and dying, the British and Americans were withdrawing. The Turks, who were out of ammunition, affixed their bayonets and attacked the enemy and there ensued a terrible hand to hand combat. The Turks succeeded in withdrawing by continuous combat and by carrying their injured comrades on their backs. They paraded at Pyongyang with their heads held high." - G.G. Martin - British Lieutenant General

"The Turkish forces have shown success above that expected in the battles they gave in Korea." - General Collings - Commander US Army

"We owe the escape of thousands of United Nations troops out of a certain encirclement to the heroism of the Turkish soldiers. The Turkish soldiers in Korea have added a new and unforgettable page of honor to the customs and legends of heroism of the Turkish nation." - Emanuel Shinwell - U.K. Minister of Defense

"The heroic soldiers of a heroic nation, you have saved the Eighth Army and the IX'th Army Crops from encirclement and the 2nd Division from destruction. I came here today to thank you on behalf of the United Nations Army." - General Walton H. Walker, Commander, Eighth Army

"The Turks are the hero of heroes. There is no impossibility for the Turkish Brigade." - General Douglas MacArthur - United Nations Forces Commander in Chief

"The military situation in Korea is being followed with concern by the whole American public. But in these concerned days, the heroism shown by the Turks has given hope to the American nation. It has inculeated them with courage. The American public fully appreciates the value of the services rendered by the Turkish Brigade and knows that because of them the Eighth American Army could withdraw without disarray. The American public understands that the United Nations Forces in Korea were saved from encirclement and from falling in to the hands of the communists by the heroism shown by the Turks." - 2

December 1950, from the commentary of a US radio commentator The Turkish Brigade, as can be understood from the summary of the Kunuri battles and the echoes it produced in the world, had successfully accomplished its mission. The Brigade was proud to have informed the country of the news of success which the state and nation expected, at the highest level. A handful of soldiers had provided the state with power, great opportunities and esteem.

17 YEARS HAVE PASSED SINCE OCCUPATION OF SHUSHA BY ARMENIANS

2009-05-11T17:52:00.002+10:00

Image Today is the 16th anniversary of Armenia's occupation of Azerbaijan's city of Shusha.

On 8 May 1992 the Armenian troops carried out a military operation occupying Shusha. The artillery shots at the city continued up to 6:00 in the morning. After this, the Armenian soldiers assaulted against Shusha from three sides.

Some 248 historical facilities, eight museums, one photo gallery, one museum, eight music schools, tens of cultural facilities lie under Armenian occupation in Shusha.

Several hours before the assault to Shusha, through mediation of the Head of Iran, the Presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia signed an agreement in Tehran regarding peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

During Shusha's occupation, hundreds of peaceful people died, nearly 60 citizens, including women and children, were taken prisoners and become missing people. Most of them have not been released yet. Nearly 22,000 people became internally displaced persons.

The conflict between the two South Caucasus countries began in 1988 when Armenia made territorial claims against Azerbaijan. Armenian armed forces have occupied 20 percent of Azerbaijan since 1992, including the Nagorno-Karabakh region and 7 surrounding districts. Azerbaijan and Armenia signed a ceasefire agreement in 1994. The co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group - Russia, France, and the U.S. - are currently holding the peace negotiations

http://www.historyoftruth.com/videos/videos/azeri-genocide-31-march-1918.html

http://www.historyoftruth.com/videos/videos/xocali-hocali-soyqirimi-khojaly-genocide.html

KATSO: WE WANT BORDER TO BE OPENED WITH ARMENIA

2009-05-11T17:45:00.001+10:00

Saturday, 09 May 2009

The Kars Chamber of Industry and Commerce (KATSO) has always supported opening the border gates with Armenia, which are currently closed due to a conflict between Turkey and Armenia, KATSO Chairman Ali Güvensoy said on Friday. The Kars Chamber of Industry and Commerce (KATSO) has always supported opening the border gates with Armenia, which are currently closed due to a conflict between Turkey and Armenia, KATSO Chairman Ali Güvensoy said on Friday. Speaking to reporters in Kars, Güvensoy said the people of Kars -- and the entrepreneurs in the city, in particular -- wanted the border to be opened and relations with Armenia to be normalized. Underlining that the Armenian side should not evade its responsibility and should take steps to contribute to normalization, he said: “They should give up their ‘so-called’ genocide claims and end the occupation in Karabakh. Otherwise opening the borders will continue to be difficult for another decade.” Güvensoy said KATSO wanted to boost trade with Armenia and that they supported peaceful cooperation toward this end. “The planes that land in Armenia pass over Kars, Trabzon and Antalya. We want all gates be open to this country,” he opined. “At the same time, relations with Azerbaijan are also of the utmost importance. We dare not offend our brother nation,” he added. Turkey closed its borders with Armenia in 1993 in solidarity with Azerbaijan after ethnic Armenian separatists, backed by Yerevan, occupied Azerbaijan's Nagorno-Karabakh region. Azerbaijan has objected to Turkey's US-backed talks with Armenia because it wants to resolve the dispute with Armenia over the occupation of the Nagorno-Karabakh region before Turkey opens its borders to Armenia.

Western perception towards the issue

2009-05-11T17:26:00.005+10:00

For many years in American media, the Indian was portrayed as the savage "bad guy." Certainly, native Americans hardly had anyone speaking on their behalf, and it was natural for the public to unquestioningly accept a one-sided version of events. Finally, as the indisputable truth became reported more and more (especially following the1960s publication of Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee), the real version of this historical conflict became widely accepted. Ironically, the formerly accepted "good guy" side was revealed to have been the actual dishonorable ones (having broken every treaty) and the ones significantly engaged in heartless slaughters, coupled with, at times, campaigns of systematic extermination.

For nearly a century, the Western World has wholeheartedly accepted that there has been an attempt by the Ottoman Turks to systematically destroy the Armenian people, comparable to what the Nazis committed upon the Jews during World War II. Many Armenians who have settled in America, Europe and Australia (along with other parts of the world, known as "The Armenian Diaspora") have clung to the tragic events of so long ago as a form of ethnic identity, and have considered it their duty to perpetuate this myth, with little regard for facts... at the same time breeding hatred among their young. As descendants of the merchant class from the Ottoman Empire, Armenians have been successful in acquiring the wealth and power to make their voices heard... and they have made good use of the "Christian" connection to gain the sympathies of Westerners who share their religion and prejudices.

Turks characteristically shun propaganda, and have chosen not to dwell on the tragedies of the past, forging ahead to build upon brotherhood — not hate. This is why the horrifying massacres committed upon the Turks, Kurds and other Ottoman Muslims by Armenians have seldom been heard. When such reports are heard, Westerners can be callously dismissive... Turkish lives are apparently as meaningless to them as Indian lives were to most early Americans.

(The following is an excerpt from Dr. Leon Picon, reviewing the book, "THE ARMENIAN FILE"):

How successfully the Turks could have warded off the resultant stigma through counter-propaganda will never be known. But it is certain that in 1922 Sultan Mohammed Vl put it quite succinctly and pointedly, when he told the American writer E. Alexander Powell:
“If we sent one, your newspapers and periodicals would not publish an article written by a Turk, if they published it, your people would not read it, if they read it, they would not believe it. Even if we sent a qualified person to America, to convey to you in your language, the Turkish point of view, would he find an impartial audience?” [Gurun, File, p. 37]

It's amazing that whenever the "Armenian Genocide" is referred to in Western media, journalists seem to fall all over themselves in presenting the perspective totally from the Armenian propaganda machinery. Whenever there is an attempt to present "the other side," the passage is usually preceded by "The Turkish Government claims..." Keeping in mind we all know how dishonest spokespeople from any government can be. (And reinforcing the erroneous view that only the Turkish Government objects to the Armenian version of history.)

"A lie travels round the world while Truth is putting on her boots" (Used by C.H. Sturgeon, famed English preacher of the 19th century)

No person of Turkish heritage would accept what the Turkish Government has to say about this issue, as the final word. Just like no person of Armenian heritage should care about what the Armenian side has to say. What every person needs to do is look at the facts. If there were REAL proof of government- sponsored evil planned against the Armenians, a people who peacefully lived with and prospered beside the Turks for over five centuries, it would be Turks crying out against such horrors before most everyone else... one's humanity and integrity should ideally supersede loyalty to one's ethnic tribe.

What Dr. Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda, swore by is unfortunately very true: If you tell a lie... especially a big lie... enough times, people will believe it. The often told "Armenian Genocide" tale... a tale told hardly with any opposition in nations sympathetic to the "Christian" Armenians... has been so ingrained within people's belief systems that any attempt to shed light on the actual truth is often violently rejected. Why, everyone knows those Turks were bloodthirsty savages!

"Give a lie twenty-four hours start, and it will take a hundred years to overtake it." (C.F. Dixon-Johnson, British author of the 1916 book, "The Armenians," appalled over the deceitful practices of his book's subject.)

Ironically, if anyone acted genocidally, with the intention of systematically wiping out people because of their ethnic or religious identity, it was the people who are traditionally accepted as the victims of this conflict. Another irony is that while Armenians have been doing their utmost to portray Turks as Nazis (in an effort to equate themselves with Holocaust victims, the one group best known to have fallen prey to genocide), Turks did their best to save Jews during World War II... while European Armenians actively supported the Nazi cause.

Since the Turkish perspective is attempting to undo nearly ninety years (and well beyond) of the unopposed one-sided view that has permeated Western minds, also having to contend with charges of "revisionism" and "denial"... defensiveness unfairly becomes part of the picture. While the aim of this site is to present mostly impartial views to get people to question what they have unthinkingly accepted, what this entails is that the Turks are put in the uncomfortable position of having to prove a negative — a difficult, if not impossible task... on the order of attempting to prove God does not exist. The issues are whether there was a state directed policy of extermination (that is, genocide... with the provision that there must be intent — backed up by tangible, no-buts-about-it evidence — as defined by the 1948 United Nations rule... and also whether Armenians constituted a political group, unprotected by another article from the U.N. Convention on Genocide)... and whether the Armenians and other minorities were the sole victims of massacres.

"(This) one-sided and unreliable information (about any people) after a long period of unchallenged time, would create hostility and hatred that would not be easily overcome.” (Cyrus Hamlin, co-founder of the American missionary college in Istanbul [Robert College], opining on anti-Turkish propaganda, late 19th-Century.)

Once people put their prejudices aside, and look at the validity of the evidence offered on both sides, the truth about the "Armenian Genocide" will prevail, and the entire world will see the Armenians for what they are... lying, deceitful cowards! (I must not not all Armenians can be put in the same basket, as I have met many who are truthful and actauly want this issue to go away for good. They are sick of the propoganda caused by the deceitful diaspora.

The problem is Armenians will never accept that there was no genocide... as the genocide has become too much a reason for the Armenians' existence, and facts become irrelevant, or conveniently altered.)

Innocent until proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt should be the legal principle at work here, and ideally it should not be up to the Turks to prove that they did not commit genocide but for Armenians and their Turk-hating supporters to prove that the Turks did. This "trial" has already historically taken place, as you will soon see... and the resulting "acquittal" hasn't made any difference in the eyes of those who will condemn the Turks, regardless of the facts.

"Condemnation without hearing both sides is unjust and un-American"
Arthur Tremaine Chester, "Angora and the Turks," The New York Times Current History, Feb.1923

"Believing Armenophile publicity 'exaggerated, misconstructed, and abusive,' [Admiral] Bristol in early 1920 told [Rev.] Barton... that it was contrary to the American sense of fair play to kick a man when he was down and give him a chance to defend himself."
Joseph L. Grabill, "PROTESTANT DIPLOMACY AND THE NEAR EAST: Missionary influence on American policy, 1810-1927," 1971, p. 264

"...Matter sent to the papers by their correspondents in Turkey is biased against the Turks. This implies an injustice against which even a criminal on trial is protected."
Gordon Bennett, publisher, The New York Herald, circa 1915

"No Englishman worthy of the name would condemn a prisoner on the evidence of the prosecution alone, without first hearing the evidence for the defence."
C.F. Dixon-Johnson, British author, from his 1916 book, "The Armenians."

"There is no crime without evidence. A genocide cannot be written about in the absence of factual proof."
Henry R. Huttenbach, history professor who appears to support the Armenian viewpoint exclusively, as do... curiously... nearly all so-called "genocide scholars"; The Genocide Forum, 1996, No. 9

"It is... time that Americans ceased to be deceived by (Armenian) propaganda in behalf of policies which are... nauseating..."
John Dewey, Columbia University professor, "The Turkish Tragedy," The New Republic, Nov. 1928

Edward R. Murrow, journalist with integrity, from his "See It Now" CBS-TV broadcast of March 9, 1954, commenting on the "takeover" of the USA by the witch-hunting Senator Joseph McCarthy... in words that could easily defend today's "genocide deniers":

We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We ... are not descended from fearful men— not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular.

In what may be applied to the wide and mindless acceptance of the "Armenian Genocide," this great thinker also said ("This I Believe," 1951):

Except for those who think in terms of pious platitudes or dogma or narrow prejudice... people don’t speak their beliefs easily, or publicly.

"Unfortunately, if something is shouted loud enough, there are always those who believe it..." (ADDENDUM: Two thought-provoking and paraphrased quotes from the movie, Spider-Man 3, the first from Aunt May, who could have been addressing the Armenians: "Uncle Ben wouldn't want us to live for one second with revenge on our hands to poison us and turn us into something ugly." Second, from Peter Parker, who could have been addressing the mindless many who accept pro-Armenian claims at face value: "It's the choices that make us who we are, and we can always choose to do what's right.")

Comments showcasing genocide advocates' disrespect toward the science of objective history and the necessity for "revisionism" as better facts come along are expressed on the nose with this excerpt from the Sept. 18, 2006 NEWSWEEK Magazine's letters section, written by Michael Manhart:

"...People become enraged when science makes a decision or a discovery that they don't like. They don't like the change in Pluto's status. They don't like evolution. They don't like global warming. But the fact is that science is not about giving us answers we like or want. I sincerely hope someday we can abandon this childish and ignorant attitude toward science."

Another NEWSWEEK letter-writer (Ray Sachs, Sept. 25, 2006) could be talking about the blind dogma and harmful tactics of genocide-believers, versus one such as I who would change his mind if the factual proof were there:

"I have no problem with any religion as long as it remains about belief rather than absolute certainty. Belief is compatible with respect and tolerance for other beliefs. Certainty is an arrogance that leads to intolerance, disrespect and, all too often, terror and war."

A Navigation tip: "Cumulative," in the column at left (under "Sections"), features an overall index of all the pages on the site.

Taken from http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CONFIRM RECOGNITION

2009-05-11T16:57:00.001+10:00

Ambassador of Australia to Turkey, Peter Doyle said that Australian government is not inclined to intervene such issues and the decision of parliament of South Australia does not reflect the approach of Australian government

Following the statement made by Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Turkey condemning recognition of so called Armenian genocide by South Australian Parliament, ambassador of Australia to Turkey, Peter Doyle said, “Australian government is not inclined to intervene such issues. Decision of South Australian state does not reflect approach of Australian government.”

Ambassador Peter Doyle issued a statement following the statement of Turkish Foreign Ministry condemning recognition of 1915 events as genocide of Armenian, Greek and Assyrians by Parliament of South Australia. Doyle stressed that decision of South Australian Parliament does not reflect the view of Australian government and said that the policy of Australia over this issue is clear. Australian government is not a party in this issue and it believes that the best way for resolving the dispute is dialogue between governments and people related the issue.

The situation of the Armenians: By one who was among them

2009-05-11T16:54:00.001+10:00

By Hj Pravitz, Nya Dagligt Allehanda, 23 April, 1917

Hj Pravitz takes a deeper look at the statements that had previously been made by Mrs. Marika Stjernstedt, in Nya Dagligt Allehanda, a Swedish Newspaper published in the period 1859-1944.

*******************
"…Recently returned home from abroad I have right now – i.e. somewhat late – had the opportunity to look at two Swedish booklets on the Armenian issue. "Sven Hedin — adelsman" [Sven Hedin — a nobility], by Ossiannilsson and "Armeniernas fruktansvärda läge" [the terrible situation of the Armenians], by Marika Stjernstedt. The former book went immediately in the waste basket. In all its poorly hidden appreciation of the title character, it annoyed me more than a main article in Dagens Nyheter. The latter, which seemed spirited by the compassion for the suffering Armenians, I have read repeatedly, and it is really this and its inaccuracies that my article is about.

I dare to claim, that hardly any other Swede has had the opportunity like me, to thoroughly and closely study the misery among the Armenians, since I now for about a month have traveled right among all the emigrating poor people. And this, during the right time, fall 1915, during which the alleged brutalities, according to both writers, were particularly bad.

I want to hope, that what I am describing below, which are my own experiences, will have the purpose to remove the impression of inhumanity and barbarity from the Turkish and German side, which is easily induced by the reading of the two booklets mentioned above.

If I understand the contents of the books correctly, both writers want to burden the Turks as well as the Germans with deliberate assaults or even cruelties.

My position as an imbedded eyewitness gives me the right and duty to protest against such claims, and the following, based on my experiences, will support and strengthen this protest.

Despite the fact that I was and am such a pronounced friend of Germany and its allies, which is consistent with the position of a servant of a neutral country, I started my journey from Konstantinopel (Istanbul) through the Asian Turkey, with a certain prejudiced point of view, partly received from American travelers, about the persecution of the Armenians by their Turkish masters. My Lord, which misery I would see, and to which cruelties I would be a witness! And although my long service in the Orient has not convinced me that the Armenians, despite their Christianity, are any of God’s best children, I decided to keep my eyes open to see for myself to which extent the rumors about Turkish assaults are true and the nameless victims were telling the truth.

I sure got to view misery, but planned cruelties? Absolutely nothing.

This is precisely why it has appeared to me to be necessary to speak up.

To start with, it is unavoidable to state, that a transfer of the unreliable Armenian elements from the northern parts of the Ottoman Empire to the south was done by the Turkish government due to compulsory reasons.

It should have been particularly important to remove, from the Erzeroum district, all these settlers, who only waited for a Russian invasion to join the invading army against the hated local legal authority. When Erzeroum fell in February 1916, an Armenian, with whom I just shared Russian imprisonment, uttered something I interpreted as 'It would have fallen way earlier if we had been allowed to stay.' That a country like Turkey, threatened and attacked by powerful external enemies, is trying to secure itself against cunning internal enemies, no one should be able to blame her.

I think it points to a misconception when one claims that the Armenians are living under the uninterrupted distress of some sort of Turkish slavery. There are peoples that have it worse. Or what about Indian Kulis and Bengalis under British rule, and the Persian nationalists in Azerbaijan under the Russians' — "penétration pacificue", and the Negroes in Belgian Congo, and the Indians in the Kautschuk district in French Guyana. All these, not to mention many others, seem to me, are victimized to a higher degree and more permanently than the Armenians. I guess technically, one can say that a longer lasting but milder persecution is less bearable to endure than a bloody but quick act of despotism, as in (Ottoman) assaults of the kind that from time to time put Europe's attention on the Armenian issue. Apart from these periodical so-called massacres, the reason of which could to a large degree be ascribed to the Armenians themselves, I do think that the (Armenians) are treated reasonably well.

The (Armenians) have their own religion, their own language, both in speaking and writing, their own schools etc.

As far as the much discussed major Armenian migration is concerned, I am the first to agree that the attempts of the Turkish side to reduce the difficulties of the refugees left a lot to be desired. But I emphasize again, in the name of fairness, that considering the difficult situation in which Turkey, as the target of attack from three powerful enemies, was in and it was, in my opinion, almost impossible for the Turks, under these circumstances, to have been able to keep up an orderly assistance activity.

I have seen these poor refugees, or "emigrants", to use Tanin’s words, seen them closely. I have seen them in the trains in Anatolia, in oxen wagons in Konia and elsewhere, by foot in uncountable numbers up in the Taurus mountains, in camps in Tarsus and Adana, in Aleppo, in Deir-el-Zor and Ana.

I have seen dying and dead along the roads — but among hundreds of thousands there must, of course, occur casualties. I have seen childrens' corpses, shredded to pieces by jackals, and pitiful individuals stretch their bony arms with piercing screams of "ekmek" (bread).

But I have never seen direct Turkish assaults against the ones hit by destiny. A single time I saw a Turkish gendarme in passing hit a couple of slow moving people with his whip; but similar things have happened to me in Russia, without me complaining, not then, nor later.

In Konia, there lived a French woman, Madame Soulié, with family and an Italian maid. They lived there, despite the war, and the Turks did them no harm. And as far as the Germans stationed in the town are concerned, she called them 'our angels.' 'They give all they have to the Armenians!.' Such evidence of German readiness to sacrifice I established everywhere the Germans were.

In Aleppo, I lived by the Armenian Báron, the owner of a large hotel. He did not tell me about any Turkish cruelties, although we talked a lot about the situation of his fellow citizens. We also talked about Djemal Pasha, who would come the day after and with whom I would meet. Báron expressed himself very positively about this man, who by the way, least of all seemed like an executioner.

In Aleppo, I hired an Armenian servant, who then during a couple of months was my daily company. Not a word has he told me about Turkish cruelties, neither in Aleppo nor in his home town of Marash or elsewhere. I must unconditionally believe in exaggerations from Mrs. Stjernstedt’s side and I do not put one bit of confidence in the Armenian authorities she claims to refer to.

On page 44, Mrs. Stjernstedt writes about (the town of) Meskene and an Armenian doctor Turoyan. I was in Meskene right when he was supposed to have been there. I looked carefully around everywhere for historical landmarks, since Alexander the great crossed the Euphrates (river) here, and the old testament also talks about this place. There was not a sign of Armenian graves and not of any Armenians either, except for my just mentioned servant. I consider Mr. Turayan’s evidence very questionable, and I even dare to doubt that this man, if he exists, was ever there during the mentioned time. If the conditions in Meskene really were as he claims, will anyone then believe that the suspicious Turks would have sent an Armenian up there with a "mission from the government"?

For fourteen days, I followed the Euphrates; it is completely out of the question that I during this time would not have seen at least some of the Armenian corpses that, according to Mrs. Stjernstedt’s statements, should have drifted along the river en masse at that time. A travel companion of mine, Dr. Schacht, was also travelling along the river. He also had nothing to tell when we later met in Baghdad.

In summary, I think that Mrs. Stjernstedt, somewhat uncritically, has accepted the hair-raising stories from more or less biased sources, which formed the basis for her lecture.

By this, I do not want to deny the bad situation for the Armenians, which probably can motivate the collection initialized by Mrs. Stjernstedt.

But I do want to, as far as it can be considered to be within the powers of an eyewitness, deny that the regular Turkish gendarme forces, who supervised the transports, are guilty of any cruelties.

Later on, in a different format, I want to impartially and neutrally like now treat the Armenian issue, but at the moment, may the adduced be enough.

Rättvik, April 1917

HJ Pravitz.

Other Armenian Volunteer Units

2009-05-08T19:19:00.002+10:00

THE SECOND ARMENIAN VOLUNTEER UNIT

The commander of this unit was Dro.
Setting off from Iğdır, the unit followed the Iğdır-Beyazıt-Berkri-Van line.

THE THIRD ARMENIAN VOLUNTEER UNIT

It was formed in Kağızman.
This unit, under the command of Amazaspom, held the Kağızman-Eleşkirt-Malazgirt-Bitlis line.

THE FOURTH ARMENIAN VOLUNTEER UNIT

The unit which was commanded by Keri, was positioned on Sarıkamış-Gare-Orzan-Köprüköy-Erzurum line.
Only one type of military uniform was prepared for the Armenian Volunteer Units.
There were green epaulets bearing the initials “A.D.I” (Pervaya Armyanskaya Drujina: The First Armenian Volunteer Unit) on these uniforms.

REBELLIONS

The centers of the most important rebellions carried out by the Armenian Committees in the Anatolian provinces were Zeytun, Bitlis, Van, Şebinkarahisar, and Urfa; Yozgat, Amasya, Tokat, Sivas, Kayseri, Elazığ, and Diyarbakır were of secondary importance.
Armenian Committees appointed inspectors, commanders, and gang leaders to those regions.
The places chosen for the inciting of rebellions and the military sabotages were the principal routes and the military communication lines where the range stations of the Ottoman armies were located. (Ottoman).
During these rebellions, as it had been the case with Zeytun, Van, Şebinkarahisar, Mount Musa, and Urfa, some troops were required to be transferred to these regions from Ordu.
This fact weakened the battle capacity of army fighting at the fronts.
Accomponied by the beginning of the war, the military maneuvers of the Armenian Committees spread from one region to another rapidly.
It was ascertained that in 1915, almost 76.000 Armenians out of whom 30,000 were in Sivas, 10.000 in Erzurum, 15,000 in Van, 7,000 in Muş, 5,000 in Diyarbakır, 4,000 in Elazığ, and 5,000 in Bitlis, were in preparation of rebellion.
The dates and the places of these military maneuvers that took place between 1914-1916 are displayed on the map.
The Armenian Volunteer Units and the Armenian Fedayeens served as important support elements providing the most crucial intelligence about the Ottoman Army.
Russian Duma Deputy Papacanov expressed that the Russian military officials had informed him of the contributions of the Armenian Volunteer Units to the Russian Army and told him that these units equipped with full intelligence about the region had been irreplaceable.
After the occupation of Erzurum by the Russians in 1916, the following were related in an article published in Echo de Paris, in France:
“In the violent clashes that took place in Erzurum, the strong fortress of the Turks, the Armenian Volunteer Units also fought on the side of the brave Russian Kazakh Units. The Armenian Volunteer Units that knew the region very well, provided an invaluable service for the Russian army.”
Russian General Çernozubov wrote the following words for the First Armenian Volunteer Unit of Andranik:
“… Our successes in Ashnak, Vrush Horan, Hanik, Kotur, Saray, Molla Hasan, Belicik and Garateli mostly materialized with the help of the activities of the First Armenian Volunteer Unit. They were great supporters in the fights that took place in Kotur Strait, near Hoy and in

IN ENEMY LINES

2009-05-08T19:13:00.006+10:00

Now, I would like to bring some critical information on the military activities of some Ottoman citizens, with whom were some of the members of parliament, in the Eastern Anatolian provinces against the Ottoman Empire, at the very beginning of the Great War, before the battles between the Ottoman and Russian forces in the Caucasus, to your attention. Their military activities against Türkiye along with the insurgences incited by the Fedayeens affiliated to the Armenian Committees in some Anatolian provinces are the only reason for the relocations of the civilian Armenian people residing very close to the Russian front to a place far away from that region (Syria and Mesopotamia). As an honorable Turkish academician, I swear to God, and on the common holy values of the entire humanity that there is no other reason for the relocation of the Ottoman Armenians to other regions under the war conditions of 1915, despite all the impossibilities. All the critical information I would like to present you is directly drawn from the Russian and Armenian sources. Especially, the part concerning the military activities of the Armenian Committees at the Caucasus Front are taken directly from the Russian and Armenian sources. The most reliable narrator of the military activities of the Armenian Dashnak and Hntchaq Committees in the Eastern Anatolia against the Ottoman Army and the civilian Muslim people living in the region during the World War I was a Russian Commander. In 1927, Russian General Gavril Korganoff of Armenian origin explains, in his book La participation des Armeniens a la guerre Mondiale sur le front du Caucase, 1914–1918 [Participation of the Armenians in the World War on the Caucasus Front 1914-1918 (Paris, 1927]), how the Armenian Committees and the Russian General Staff organized the Armenian Volunteer Units, and how these units fought against the Ottoman Forces, along with 30 hand-drawn front plans. The report, numbered 13378, dated December 24, 1915, that was prepared by the Russian Caucasus Army includes statistical data about the Armenian Volunteer Units. According to these report, 6 volunteer units were formed. Each unit was composed of 1.000 or less members, and there were 5.000 Armenian volunteers in total. In addition, the 7th Reserve Volunteer Unit was formed in Yerevan. (These are the first statistics. The number increased to 10.000 later). Armenian Volunteers from Bulgaria, Romania, Egypt, and the USA (among them, the Ottoman Armenians were in majority) also joined these units. As emphasized in the Andranik biography published in Beirut, in 1986; the majority of the people who took part in the formation of the Armenian Volunteer Units at the Caucasus Front consisted of the Ottoman Armenians who took refuge in the Caucasus front, and of those who settled in other countries. I would like to present some brief information on these volunteer units:
THE FIRST ARMENIAN VOLUNTEER UNIT The commander of this unit, Andranik, in his interview with Russian General Nazarbekov, indicated that most of the combatant soldiers in his unit were from Turkey, and from the province of Muş. They were holding the Iran-Başkale-Van line.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE GUILTY AND THE INNOCENT

2009-05-08T19:09:00.000+10:00

The Armenian figures who were arrested on April 24, 1915 were under then circumstances either the active members or the leaders of the Armenian Committees that were plotting against the Ottoman Empire.
It is a striking fact that there were former and new Armenian members of the Ottoman Parliament among those who were banished from the capital, Istanbul, upon a security decision taken by the Government, as well as those who directly collaborated with Russian forces at the Caucasus Front.
Some of the said members of the Ottoman Parliament, along with the volunteers accompanying them, joined the Russian forces at the Caucasus Front just at the outset of the Great War.
As those people were in direct collaboration with the Russian forces they could not have been arrested.
If they had been in Istanbul on April 24, 1915, they would most probably have been charged with treason due to their activities against the Ottoman Empire and punished in the most severe way possible.
This procedure is a quite legal, and usual one.
In all the states, the perpetrators of such acts have always been punished accrding to the law.
The values at the beginning of the 20th century and those at the threshold of the 21st century may differ in certain aspects. Nevertheless, “not the opposition to war” but “the high treason in the war”, especially “fighting in the enemy lines” is deemed as an act requiring the heaviest punishment in all the states even today.
Other Armenian members of the Parliament, who did not engage in the military activities organized by the Armenian Committees, continued their duties during the Great War.
The minutes of the Ottoman Parliament are the most obvious proof of this practice.
The same policy was also applied without any reservation in the Ottoman civilian, judicial, financial, and military bureaucracy – with some exceptions.
The directions that the Ottoman government sent to the governors and the district officials prove the sensitivity in making distinction between the guilty and the innocent.
At this point, I would like to commemorate the brave Armenian and Christian medical staff, doctors and pharmacists who served in the Ottoman Army, and lost their lives in the battles at various fronts, or who died of typhus and other epidemics along with the Muslim doctors.
Of the 163 Ottoman medical staff died at the Caucasus Front during the Great War, 124 were Muslim, 19 Greek, 17 Armenian, and 3 were of Jewish origin.
Today, the names of all those personnel are inscribed on the left marble wall of the Gülhane Military Medical Faculty in Ankara.
The loyal Ottoman Christian citizens in the Ottoman Army fulfilled their military service with self-sacrifice.
The Ottoman War Ministry awarded those heroes with medals and decorations.
The list of the Armenian (and Christian) officers who were holding highly critical and secret positions in the Ottoman Army Headquarters and at the fronts in 1917 is an undeniable evidence of the distinction between the guilty and the innocent.

EXEMPLARY ATTITUDE

2009-05-08T18:28:00.003+10:00

There are absolutely plausible reasons for the governments’ resorting to the relocation of civilians on grounds of security at different periods, and geographical areas.
Yet, the modern and contemporary history is full of examples of agonies and unforgettable tragedies caused by such security measures.
Without doubt, the security measures the Ottoman Empire had implemented induced unbearable pains and disasters likewise.
It has never been denied by the Ottoman documents that the civilian Armenian convoys were sometimes exposed to “gang” attacks or to the misdeeds of the “officious” authorities.
However, the humane effort and sensitivity displayed by the Ottoman civil and military authorities during the implementation of the relocations should not be ignored.
The attempts of Cemal Pasha, Commander of the Fourth Ottoman Army at the Syria Front, at embracing the relocated Armenians, with extraordinary humanitarian aid projects and mobilizing of all the sources available under his command for the welfare of the relocated, who were overwhelmed by the heavy conditions of the Great War, without showing any signs of hesitation should be recorded as a historical reality.
The aid projects the Fourth Ottoman Army provided for the relocated Armenians at the Syria under the war conditions in the beginning of the 20th century is the first example of the self-sacrificing “humanitarian aid” activities conducted currently by NATO and UN peacekeeping forces
I would like to state briefly that:
Neither the Turkish people nor the Ottoman leaders have ever lost their humanitarian characteristics or their capability of distinguishing between the guilty and the innocent even at a time when they were fighting for their existence before the irresponsible behaviours of the Armenian Committees. The officials who were found to be guilty of misconduct towards the relocated Armenians were sentenced painstakingly regardless of their positions or ranks.
The policy the Ottoman Government implemented at the outset of the 20th century, under the heavy conditions of war, is an interesting historical experience, as it paved the way to series of unprecedented trials and punishments at the time of war.
At this point, I would like to add an important detail in order to dispel any confusion:
What I mean here are not the political trials executed in Istanbul under occupation after the Mondros Armistice of 1918.
I mean the Court Martial investigations and trials carried out against the Ottoman officials who were accused of misuse of authority and maltreatment of the relocated Armenians in the Crisis of 1915.
The court martial of 1915 and 1916 at the Ottoman Court Martial should be taken as exemplary models in the field of war criminology.
These trials executed at the Court Martial in the same year by the same authority that had implemented the Law of Relocations in 1915 are deliberately ignored.
In 1940, Russian Major General Nikolai Georgiyeviç Korsun wrote in his book that, during the implementation of the relocations, Turkish military authorities and the Turkish people had treated the relocated Armenians kindly; but, there were few instances where the Armenians were attacked in some regions.
According to Russian Major General, half of the relocated Armenians died of hunger and widespread epidemics.
By the way, I would like to share my opinions on another subject.
Due to the “authority loophole” caused by the inevitable conditions of the First World War there was a civil unrest among the Turks (Muslims) and the Armenians (Christians) in some of the Anatolian provinces.
In some areas, the armed Armenian and Muslim inhabitants took up arms against each other.
As a result of all these events, there were tragic losses for the both sides.
The number of the Muslims massacred by the Armenian Fedayeens and the Armenian Volunteer Units between 1914 and 1918 was almost five times as much as the casualties that the Ottoman Army suffered as a result of the attacks by Allied Powers during the four-year World War I.
The above diagram shows the conflicts of the civilian Muslim people and the Ottoman Security Forces with the Armenian Fedayeens and the Armenian Volunteer Units affiliated to the Dashnak, Hntchaq and Ramgavar Committees in 1914 – 1915 by monthly periods.
This diagram reached its peak when the committee leaders, posing threat to the security, in the capital of the Empire were arrested (April 24, 1915).
Different figures are mentioned in relation to the total losses of the Armenians during the same period.
As I have not completed my studies on the Armenian casualties yet, I am unable to give a definite number - for the time being.

Definition of Problem

2009-05-08T18:26:00.000+10:00

The most vigorous discussion area of the Turkish-Armenian imbroglio has been darkened by the effective propagandas made in and after 1915.
The Crises of 1915 does constitute a quite dramatic tragedy of war in various aspects.
Today this issue has been turned into an international conflict in relation to the recording of the history.
The positions of the parties involved in this inveterate controversy are as follows:
(1) The Armenian Diaspora and the Republic of Armenia claim that the military activities undertaken by the Armenian Committees were in favor of the enemy during the war and actions aiming at “rescuing themselves from the Ottoman sovereignty”.
(2) Under the conditions of the First World War, making use of the Armenian Committees, and stabbing the Turkish Forces in the back was quite normal. Reminding of this particular fact by the Turkish historians is of course distressing. It is an obligation for the foreign parliaments and for the international organizations to pass pronouncements of “genocide” of political nature for they hold it as “wergeld” in debt to the Armenian committees. Thus, with the acceptance of such decisions taken, the “innocent lambs of 1915” would forget how they were exploited by the Entente Powers in the First World War.
(3) Turkish people perceived the military activities and massacres committed by the Ottoman Armenian Committees as a threat to the existence of the Empire necessitating self-defense and government responsibility.
In order to be able to solve the controversy, the following questions ought to be answered:
What are the military activities directed against the Ottoman army and Ottoman citizens by the Armenian Dashnak, Hntchaq and Ramgavar Committees at the beginning of the First World War?
Can those activities be considered as “indirect war” or defined as a “civil war”?
Or do they require different conceptual interpretation?

FREQUENTLY USED MEASURE
What were the elements implemented for the 1915 Crisis that occurred in the Ottoman Empire with the beginning of the Great War?
These measures ought to be clarified prior to making of a legitimate historical evaluation of the issue.
I observe three major elements of deep controversy between the Ottoman Government and Armenians Committees in the creation of the 1915 Crisis:
(1) Armenian Volunteer Units.
(2) Organizations of Armenian Fedayeens.
(3) Naval Blockades and Bombardments.
The first two of these elements were thoroughly premeditated and put into action on the battlefield by the Armenian Committees and their accomplice allies.
The third is due to the conditions of war; hence it is coincidental and indirect.
The two premeditated elements, jointly employed by the Armenian Committees and the Entente Powers, placed the only obligatory decision on the agenda of the Ottoman Government to prevent the suddenly emerging crisis . .
The coincidental third element was effective in the widely acceptance of the relocation decision that was taken to prevent the crisis.
Now, I will try to explain my observations I made during my studies in the following order:
The two of the elements employed in creating the 1915 Crisis are: the armed “Armenian Volunteer Units (later Regiments)” at the Caucasus Front; and the “Armenian Fedayeens” fulfilling the military duties assigned by the Dashnak and Hntchaq Committees in various provinces of Anatolia.
The Entente Powers were generally well informed of the military and semi-military activities conducted by these two elements. The activities were thoroughly intentional and premeditated.

Due to the conditions of war, the Russian, British and French naval bombardments carried out along the shores of Black Sea, Marmara and the Mediterranean greatly affected the Muslim and Christian communities living in these regions.
The Ottoman Government had to take additional measures to prevent the clashes among civilian people and to neutralize the military activities initiated by the Armenians to help the Entente Powers.
In my studies, I came across documents proving the direct and indirect collaboration of the Armenian Committees and the Entente Powers.
I would like to keep my evaluations of those documents outside the scope of my present speech.
I believe an example will suffice:
90 days prior to the declaration of the Law of Relocations of May 27, 1915 by the Ottoman Government, Governor Varontsov-Dashkov of the Caucasus, in his telegram message – dated February 7, 1915 and numbered 1185 – wrote the following to the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs:
“The representative of Zeytun Armenians has just come to the Caucasus Army Headquarters. The representative says that some 15.000 Armenians are ready to strike the Turkish transportation lines but that they do not have weapons and bullets. Therefore, it is extremely vital to send sufficient amount of weapons and bullets to Iskenderun due to particular importance of Zeytun located on the transportation lines of the Turkish army in Erzurum. (…) Since it is impossible for us to give the weapons directly, I believe that a contact should be established with the French and British administration concerning the sending of French or British made weapons and bullets found on the French and British (war) ships to Iskenderun.”
This message was appended to the telegraph dated February 9, 1915, numbered 708, and sent to Paris and London.
Here, I would like to clarify a point:
The relocation of civilian communities by the governments on grounds of security is the most frequently used method in wartime, and in the face of rebellions.

In the First World War, on grounds of security, the Russian Government relocated some civilian communities in West Russia, who were living near the operation area of German armies just at the commencement of the war.
A relocation measure similar to the measures taken by the Ottoman Government on grounds of security in the face of the bombardments along the Black Sea, Marmara, Mediterranean, and Syrian shores of Anatolia was implemented by the US President on the US citizens of Japanese origin during the Second World War.
Again in the Second World War, the USSR sent the communities of Turkish origin living in Crimea and Caucasus region to Central Asia through arduous voyages lasting for weeks.
And the Red Army in the Second World War took the Polish civilians away from their regions of settlement.

WHAT HAPPENED IN 1915?

2009-05-08T18:22:00.002+10:00

In order to enlighten the events known as the “1915 Crisis” between the Turks and the Armenians who lived together in an environment of peace and trust over the centuries in the Ottoman Empire, we first need to frankly answer the question “what happened in 1915?”
Yes, what happened between the Ottoman Government and the Ottoman Armenian Committees while the war waged on in 1915?
Did you know that the Committee of Union and Progress in power, and the Armenian Dashnak Committee voted for the same single list in the Ottoman Parliamentary elections almost a year before 1915?
Only 7 years before 1915, during the 1908 Young Turks’ movement, the prominent members of the Committee of Union and Progress, and the leaders of the Dashnak Committee shouted “Long live freedom!” in the squares of Istanbul together.
Well, why did then the same Turkish and Armenian leaders fought against each other on “enemy” sides when mobilization for the Great War was declared?
The world history is full of examples where the “real” is always disguised and distorted.
Let us examine our own case:
In the spring of 1915, the assaults of the Entente Powers against the Çanakkale Strait, and the ground operations of the Russian Army in the Eastern Anatolia were continuing simultaneously.
In those days, the coastal areas of the Empire were under the unceasing bombardment of the Entente battleships.
On April 24, 1915 (in other words, the date declared by the Armenian Diaspora and the Armenian Republic as a kind of “chosen trauma”), the Government in Istanbul arrested the leaders of the Ottoman Armenian Committees on the grounds of “having conducted military activities in favor of enemy forces.”

WHY ARE THE ARCHIVES IMPORTANT?
I would like to describe the picture in Istanbul and Anatolia on April 24, 1915.
At the time, the French Embassy in Istanbul was closed due to the World War. However, the intelligence reports, titled “daily events”, drawn by the French Embassy’s Chargé d’Affaires were being sent to France via the US Embassy in Istanbul.
The historical information documented in the intelligence reports prepared by the French Embassy in Istanbul between April 25 and May 1, 1915 is as follows:
(ONE) The Russian Navy is positioned at the Black Sea entrance of the Istanbul Strait.
(TWO) The British and French Navies have launched an attack on the entrance of the Çanakkale Strait.
(THREE) Armenians at the Caucasus Front are fighting against the Turkish Forces together with the Russian Army.
(FOUR) In Erzurum area, and especially in Van, the Armenian gangs are fighting against Turks.
(FIVE) The leaders of the Armenian Committees are arrested in the Ottoman capital.
(SIX) This pressure of the Ottoman Government is to the outcome of the Armenian attitude displayed in Zeytun, and at the Caucasus Front. (The term “attitude” is not explained in the report.)
(SEVEN) According to the Chief of the Ottoman Court Martial, the Armenian Committees abroad are preparing a rebellion in the six provinces of Eastern Anatolia. (In fact, the Armenian Committees had already started the rebellion; the report claims they were at the stage of “preparation”).

Creating Peace Out of War.

2009-05-08T18:15:00.004+10:00

Kemal Atatürk, the founder and architect of modern Turkey, took his just and due place in history as a senior soldier who fought against the Italians in Tripoli, British, French, Australians and New Zealanders in the Çanakkale Strait, Russians in Eastern Anatolia, and against the Greek armies in Western Anatolia, and as an experienced statesman. Therefore, 69 years after his death, the Mausoleum, his eternal resting-place a little far from Turkish General Staff in Ankara, was visited by 4 million Turkish and foreign visitors in 2005 and 8 million in 2006.
The charismatic personality and philosophy of the Great Commander still remains alive in the minds of the Mausoleum visitors ranging from the ordinary citizens of his country to the distinguished representatives of the world nations.
I believe you, do all know how that particular soldier, the founder of a modern nation and a secular republic in the East-Mediterranean geography has defined the concept of “war”.
However, once again, I would like to quote this definition by which I am fascinated just like many of his admirers.
According to the eternal Commander-in-chief of the Armies of the Turkish Republic:
“War is a murder unless it is unavoidable.”
In other words, he asserts that “war” should be “unavoidable” in order not to be conceived as a murder.
I do not know if it is possible to make any other stronger and humane definition than this.
Besides, the persona who made this definition was a military genius, and a hero who fought bravely in the battlefields.
He called on to his soldiers saying, “I am ordering you to die!” in Gelibolu, at the dawn of a very hot August night in 1915.
I have always wondered:
Why would a commander make such a definition of “war”?
What made him say, “War is a murder unless it is unavoidable”?
Kemal Atatürk was a soldier who conducted battles and wars against the armies of other nations.
Having observed the world of other nations’ armies with whom his own sons fought in the Balkan War, the Great War, and in the Turkish War of Independence, he made this definition.
It is a definition based thoroughly on comparative and minute observations of battles.
I would like to point that:
The foundation of the Turkish Republic on the remaining soil of an empire that expired its 600-year life in 1923 is the consequence of this particular definition.
This definition was made as a result of the unjust stipulations of the Mondros Armistice that brought the four-year bloody war to an end in 1918.
Thus, under the leadership of Kemal Atatürk, the Turkish nation founded a parliament and armed forces in Ankara, and fought the war because it was “unavoidable”.
The Commander, winning the military victory at a historical moment, pointed to a new and ever lastingaim for his army and nation.
“Peace at home, peace in the world!”
This aim is still pursued by the Turkish Republic as the permanent state policy...
I name this stage as “creating peace out of war.”
At this new stage, the Commander Atatürk did not want to leave the Turkish nation alone with the unbearable tragedies of the Balkan wars, the World War I, and the Turkish War of Independence forever.
The Triumphant Commander defined it as an aim to be pursued by the every single individual of the nation, who survived through the period of disasters, in reaching and exceeding the contemporary level of civilization.
He wanted all the Turks, be it men or women, to contribute to the common heritage of the humanity, and serve to the peace in the region, and around the world.
This Brave Soldier and His Nation took the first concrete step in realization of this aim at the Lausanne Peace Treaty.
He made peace with the people of a neighbor country against whom he had fought severely in Western Anatolia in the war of 1919-1922.
On March 18, 1934, he called on to the mournful mothers of the British, French, Australian, and New Zealander soldiers who lost their lives in their fight against the Turks in the Gelibolu Peninsula during the Great War.
This Great Man said the following for the soldiers of the Entente Powers who had disembarked on the Gelibolu Peninsula in order to seize Istanbul, the Turkish capital since 1453:
“Heroes who shed their blood and lost their lives on this land!
You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore, rest in peace.
There is no difference between the Jonnies and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side in this country of ours.
You, the mothers who sent their sons from far away countries, don’t cry for them any more.
Your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace.
After having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well.”
The republican generations of the new Türkiye have never nourished themselves on the old controversies with their neighbors, world nations, and armies.
The new generations have not been raised as individuals feeding on hatred, anger, revenge, or as individuals displaying an everlasting aggressiveness.
Still, I have been observing in deep grief that no nation, state, or a leader in our world had considered the post-Great War relations, and peace as Atatürk did.
Today, the Turkish Nation is faced with the revengeful agitations and provocations of an unfortunate inhumane conception discriminating between the nationalities of military and civilian casualties of an incredible disaster, the Great War which destroyed humanity 90 years ago.
This new type of aggression, which I define as the distortion of the realities by the Inquisition decisions in the world history, has awakened the haunting mentality of the Dark Ages once again.
As an academician deeply convinced of the values of the civilized world, I feel deep humane reaction against the claims and of acceptance of the term “genocide” for the “events of 1915” by the parliaments of some allied states, just as all the individuals of my nation do.
However, as a Turkish citizen, I have to curb my rightful humane reaction against those decisions taken.
I am here to make an evaluation of a continuing non-historical, irrational, unscientific, illegitimate, and aggressive Inquisition directed against the Turkish Nation and its reliable friends.