Armenian Comittees and their activities

The Armenian Commitees and their Activities against the Ottoman Empire

The Armenian historian Richard Hovannisian asserts that "the Armenians of the nineteenth century were not prepared, however, to propose independence ... For the eastern Ottoman provinces, most Armenian leaders considered self­ determination within the framework of the Turkish Empire as the most desirable improvement.
Of the several political and revolutionary societies organized during the last quarter of the century only the Hunchakist, a Marxist organization initiated in 1887 at Geneva, advocated outright separation from the Ottoman Empire."(5)

However, Hratch Dasnabedian summarizes the situation prior to the establishment of the Hunchakist organization:

"Even before 1878, in the regions of Daron-Sasoun and Vasbouragan there had been underground cells, secret groups, and bands of "brigands" who fought against government forces. During the eighties, Khrimian and Mgrdich Portugalian were active in Van ... Expelled from Van in 1885, Mgrdich Portugalian left the Ottoman Empire and settled in Marseille, where he published the periodical 'Armenia '. His students and friends in Van considered 'Armenia' their voice, and in 1886 established the 'Armenagan' Party, the purpose of which was to secure the sovereignty of the Armenian people through revolution. "(6)

"Toward the close of the eighties, both Eastern and Western Armenians were caught up in the excitement of revolution. The Hunchakians had begun to expand throughout Constantinople., Asia Minor and Trebizond. In Vasbouragan the Armenagans were at work. In Tiflis the Yeridasart Hayastan organization had been established; its members periodically visited Ottoman Armenia to become more familiar with the situation and disposition of Armenians there; on both sides of the border they had established military cells, called the 'Droshak' groups. In various regions of Western Armenia bands of 'brigands' or groups of partisans were already operating or gradually being formed .. .In Russia, the cities of Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Tiflis were centers of students moved by the spirit of revolution. In 1890, Sarkis Gougounian, a student in St. Petersburg, formed an armed group of 125 young patriots to cross from Kars into Turkish Armenia. "(7)

Apart from the Marxist separatist Hunchakist organization, a second Armenian organization was founded in 1890 in Tiflis. Hovannisian defines this organization:

"In Transcaucasia and the eastern Ottoman vilayets, the platform Hai Heghapokhakan Dashnaktsutiun (Armenian Revolutionary Federation) founded in 1890 at Tiflis, became by the first years of the twentieth century the most powerful and comprehensive Armenian political organization. Its initial program, adopted in 1892, propounded the administrative and economic freedom of Turkish Armenia ... To effect these aims, the Dashnaktsutiun would organize fighting units, arm the populace, operate an espionage network, propagandize to raise the revolutionary spirit of Armenians, and, in particular, resort to the terrorization of corrupt officials, traitors and exploiters. The methods adopted by Dashnaktsutiun were similar to those of the Russian Narodnaia Volia and its successor, the Social Revolutionary Party, both of which maintained close contact and ideological bonds with the Armenian leaders. "(8)

Indeed, K.S.Papazian writes that in the program of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARP) adopted at the General Convention of 1892 the purpose of the organization is stated to be the achievement of political and economic freedom by means of rebellion.(9)

According to Papazian, "to run with the hare and to hunt with the hound has been the tactics oftheARF"(l 0)

(5) Richard G.Hovannisian, Almenia on the Road to Independence 1918 (California, 1967), p.16
(6) Hratch Dasnabedian, History of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation-Dashnaktsutiun 1890/1924 (Milan, 1989), p.21
(7) Dasnabedian, op. cit., p.29 (8) Hovannisian, op. cit., p.16
(8) Hovannisian, op. cit., p.16
(9) K. S. Papazian, Patriotism Perverted (Boston, 1934), p.lO
(10) Papazian, op. cit,. P.1l.

The American Commission under the leadership of General James G. Harbord, refers to the Dashnaktsutiun in the following terms in its report presented to the Peace Conference and the United States Government in 1919:

"This is really a political society rather than a party. It contains three clearly defined elements, all of which are strongly socialist.
a- The right wing composed of comitadji (meaning secret revolutionists who believe in '}trong armed methods)
b- The centre comprising intellectuals who control both wings,
c- The left wing which is almost Bolshevist. It is highly organized, has agents everywhere and still plays a dominant part in Armenian national life. The opponents of the Dashnaktsutiun say that, despite its patriotic work, it is only a relic of barbarism and must be suppressed. It is probable that the Dashnaktsutuin still employs terroristic methods, and undeniable that it is now a wurce of danger, owing to its liability to precipitate coriflicts. "

Whereas Papazian asserts that "Terrorism has,from the first, been adopted by the Dashnag Committee of the Caucasus, as a policy or a method for achieving its ends. "( 11 )

In fact, the heading "Means" in the Dashnag program adopted in 1892 reads as follows:

"The Armenian Revolutionary Federation, in order to achieve its 'Jurpose through rebellion, organizes revolutionary groups ... "(12)

M.Varandian, the most prominent Dashnag ideologist and historian says:

"The purpose of the Armenian movement, has been, from the beginning, to Jrganize as far as possible a long drawn-out fight against the Ottoman tyranny, fO create in the country a continuous revolutionary state, always having before Jur eyes the intervention of the third factor. .. the European factor"( 13)

Lt. Col. Sir Mark Sykes, proposes a similar view about the tactics of the revolutionaries. He writes in 1915:

“... the Armenians of the Mush plain are at present an extremely difficult people to manage. They are very avaricious and would object to pay the most moderate taxes; they are also exceedingly treacherous to one another, and oftenjoin the revolutionaries to wipe off old scores on their fellow villagers. As for the tactics of the revolutionaries, anything more fiendish one could not imagine-the assassination of Moslems in order to bring about punishment of innocent men, the midnight extortion of money from villages which have just paid their taxes by day, the murder of persons who refuse to contribute to their collection boxes, are only some of the crimes of which Moslems, Catholics, and Gregorians accuse them with no uncertain voice .... if the object of the Armenians is to secure equality before the law, and the maintenance of security and peace in the countries part inhabited by Armenians, then I can only say that their methods are not those calculated to achieve success. "( 14)

(11) Ibid,p.14
(12) Ibid, p 14
(13) Mikael Varandian, History of the A.R.Federation (Paris, 1932 and Cairo, 1950), p.3
(14) Sir Mark Sykes, The Caliph's Last Heritage (London 1915), ppA09,41

introduction Part 2

Until the 1870's neither Russia nor the other powers were significantly involved with the Armenians. The rebellions broke out in the Balkan provinces of the Ottoman Empire in 1875-76 and the Russo- Turkish War of 1877 -78 and its aftermath provided the conditions that were to be exploited both by the Russians and the Armenians.
The Armenians also began to seek the aid of the European powers. These attempts were pursued by the Patriarchate and the clergy.
Sir Henry Elliot, the British Ambassador,writes in a letter to the Foreign Office on 7 December 1876:
"The Armenian Patriarch called upon me yesterday. His object was to express, on behalf of the large Christian community of which he is the head, the hope that the Conference will not insist upon the Porte conceding to the provinces which had risen against the Goverment privileges which would be denied to those which had remained quiet, but which were entitled to equal consideration.
I answered with reserve, saying that the object of the Conference was to restore tranquillity to the provinces where an insurrection threatened the general peace, but that it would not, I imagined, go into the whole question of the administration of the entire Ottoman Empire.
The Patriarch replied that his people were much excited, and said that if, in order to secure the sympathy of the European Powers, it was necessary to rise in insurrection, there would be no difficulty in getting upsuch a movement. "(2)


(2) F.0.424/46, p.205-206, No.336

In a dispatch dated 14 July 1878, to Lord Salisbury, Foreign Secretary, Sir Henry Layard, British Ambassador, refers to the Russian activities among the Armenian population:

"I am informed, on good authority, that Russia is already commencing her usual intrigues among the Armenians of Asiatic Turkey. Russian agents are being sent into the provinces inhabited by them with the object of stirring up discontent against the rule and authority of the Porte. A Russian party is being fonned in the capital amongst the Armenians, which already includes some leading and influential members of that community. "(3)


(3) F.0.424/72, pp.160-161, No.211

Paul Cambon, the French Ambassador in Istanbul (1894-1897) writes:
"The Armenians were pleasantly accepted in London. The Gladstone Cabinet invited the unpleased ones, classified them, put them in order and promised to support them. Henceforth, the propaganda committee was established in London which was going to be the source of inspiration.
Two simple concepts had to be adopted by the Armenian people: The concepts of nationalism and liberty.
The committees believed that it was their duty to spread these ... and thus with the help of propaganda they exploited the deficiency and faults of the Turkish administration and established secret organizations which will spread the concepts of national awakening and liberty ... "(4)
With reference to Paul Cambon's report, the Russian General Mayewsky, Consul of Russia in Van and Erzurum, states the following in his study presented to the Russian General Staff:
"P Cambon clearly claims that the rebellious Armenians believed that their duty was to make the villagers accept the concepts of nationalism, liberty and autonomy.
In this case, what would the attitude of the Turkish Government be against the activities of Armenian committees? Could the Turkish Government approve of these activities which are actually aimed to destroy her?"

(4) Livre Jaune, Affaires Armeniennes, pp.11-12

Introduction Part 1

Armenian Atrocities and the “Genocide”
There is an orchestrated claim that the Ottoman Governments committed the crime of "genocide", beginning in April of 1915, against the Armenians even though they were loyal subjects of the Empire. Yet, the proponents of this claim can not even agree on the fundamentals, including, the "duration of the genocide"1 or the "number of the victims". Some allege that it continued until 1917 and others extend it until 1923. For example, the Republic of Armenia has adopted among its National Memory Days, April 24 as the "1915-1923 Great Genocide" day. According to some others, the "number of the victims" exceeds even the number of the whole Armenian population of the Empire.
The advocates of these allegations ignore and overlook the simple historical facts of the period in question which covers the last 40 years of the Ottoman Empire. It was during this period that the Armenian rebels betrayed the Ottomans by actively supporting the invading and occupying foreign forces, particularly the Russians. The same circles claim that the Ottoman measures to relocate the Armenian population from the war zone in eastern Anatolia to safer parts of the Empire in 1915 was not motivated by the Great War or intercommunal strife. But in reality, in the First World War, the eastern provinces of the Ottoman Empire were invaded by Russia, and the Armenians, considering the war as an opportunity, launched an uprising to establish an Armenian state in a region that was predominantly non-Armenian. War-time casualties were increased by rapidly escalating fighting between Armenians and the Muslim civil populations. Famine and epidemics augmented the loss of life.
Ironically, while those who make these allegations recognize these historical facts in their publications, they choose to be subjective in their e\'aluation of this period for obvious political ends. The goal since the very beginning ofthe "Armenian question" in the fourth quarter ofthe 19th century, has been the establishment of an Armenian state in the eastern provinces of the Ottoman Empire (after 1923, of the Republic of Turkey). Demands for reparation have been advanced in the last several decades.
In this document, the events that created the so-called "Armenian question" are narrated in a chronological order, with reference to Armenian and other foreign writers. In other words, the role of the Armenians in the domestic and foreign policy developments of the final 40 years of the Ottoman Empire is approached via the writings of non- Turkish experts, and especially of Armenians themselves. Thus, Ottoman documents and sources about the atrocities committed by Armenians on the Muslim population are deliberately excluded so as to preserve the consistency of this approach.

It should be stressed that, this document does not cover the atrocities committed by the Armenians on the Muslim population in Caucasia between the periods of 1918-1923, through which the Azerbaijani population was also deeply affected. This exercise does not claim to encompass each and every single detail of this tragic era of Ottoman history. It is, however, a meaningful cross-section of the main facts that shaped the events under consideration.

INTRODUCTION
The Ottoman Empire was founded in 1299. After almost three centuries of rise and the Golden Age, the period of decline began in 1579 and disintegration in 1699 with the Treaty of Karlowitz.
The Ottoman Empire was the major world power during the Golden Age.
Even after the period of disintegration began, it took another seventy-five years before the European powers became stronger than the Ottoman Empire and were able to make their influence felt. Russia and Austria replaced the grandeur of the Ottoman Empire after the Treaty of Kuchuk Kaynarca signed in 1774. Britain, France and finally Germany joined the two powers in the 19th century. Prior to the First World War, the fate of the Ottoman Empire depended on, to a large extent, the decisions of these five powers.
Against this background, the Armenian question was raised as a European issue at the Berlin Congress in 1878.
The Armenians lived peacefully for six centuries within the borders of the Ottoman Empire. After the conquest of Istanbul in 1453, Mehmet II invited the Armenian bishop from Bursa to Istanbul and gave him the title of Armenian Patriarch.
Lord Salisbury, British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in a letter to Sir Henry Layard, British Ambassador at Istanbul, dated 30 May 1878, asserts:
"Asiatic Turkey contains populations of many different races and creeds, possessing no capacity for self-government and no aspirations for independence, but owing their tranquillity and whatever prospect of political well-being they possess entirely to the rule of the Sultan. "(1)

(1) British Foreign Office (FO) No.36 (1878), p.I-2, No.1

Why the 24th April?

The 24th of April, and once again, just like each year, due to the enormous political pressure the Armenian Diaspora (not to mention the tens of millions of dollars spent by the Aremenians ascerting this pressure) puts on the US political system, and all its politicians everybody waits to see what President Obama will call it... Will he? Wont he?

The Armenian diaspora spend quite alot of money and time ensuring that Turkey is only known as an evil, all Turks are evil and should be treated as such... This is the only cause they have, to get the Turks to admit to the word, then follow up with claim for land, compensation etc... The entire political system and economy of Armenia depends on this tactic working.. This is why every generation of Armenians breads hatred into the new one. Why else do you think after 94 years, this issue has not dissapeared into the relms of history? After all, the Turks were tried on the Island of Malta by the English and found innocent. (More about this later) Justice was done.

I dont see the point. What ever he (Obama) calls it, he is not a historian, a scholar on the topic or anybody which should or could pass legislation and label something as "Genocide".

On the other side of the world however, in Yerevan, millions turn out to the shrine of lies... the Turkish flag is burnt, trod upon and chants are made. People carying signs displaying figures around 1500 000 (this figure started with 300 000 back in the early part of the century, but apparantly, Armenian lives are indexed to CPI) .... Same thing each year....

Pictured is Armenian Chidren burning the Turkish Flag at this years gathering of liers... If this is what you teach your children, how are we supposed to move on as humans?

Oh, and guess what Pres. Obama said during his speech on the issue... As he is a politician, he did what all politicians are good at, he played with words and voters trying to please everybody. You ask the Armenian Diaspora, they will tell you they arent happy with Pres. Obama's speech, the Turks also arent happy... Pres. Obama should leave it to the historians, had he been a corageous man, he would have said this during his speech.

On a further note to Obama's speech, the Armenians are not happy!!! Below are some examples from their posts in the first day alone:
"...Until recently, however, I would have regarded him as no worse than a weasel, a common creature in politics. But, Obama’s recent reneging on his promise to Armenians makes him nothing less than–there is no other word–a piece of scum."
"...Make no mistake about it. Obama is scum and no other word will do. Anyone who politicizes a great tragedy of the 20th century for short- term political gain is scum. Anyone who does it so easily, smoothly, and glibly is a liar and swindler."
"You are correct indeed, Andrea. He is scum maybe only scum need apply for that job"

Just like always, the Armenian's loved Obama (Clinton, Bush, et al.) until he was not assisting them with their cause, driven by their inner hatred for Turks and all things Turkish. Armenians have a great prejudice of Turks and try have them alienated from any society. Once they could see this wasnt going to plan, they do what comes natural. They chastise, badmouth and critisize the man. This is how Armenians behave in their natural habitat, once confronted with the truth.

The Turkish Government on the other hand has been calling for National Archives of Russia, France, England, Armenia and the US to be openned, researched and a decision made based on factual evidence by an independent team of researchers consisting of specialists from the above mentioned countries. This has been the stand of the Turkish Government since day 1. Armenia's answer to this is "Only after you admit to the claim of "Genocide". (Remember when they used to burn witches at the steak, or bound them and throw them in deep water to see if they sank??)

I have been doing some extensive research on this topic myself to broaden the novice... (I will blog this informaition below and give references. I have deliberately not used Turkish sources, as they could be "biased".) However, I trust that most Armenians will not be aware of what I am about to disclose as the Armenian Diaspora has been, to their credit, very active and effective in keeping the truth from the majority of the world population.

The truth is, when politicians accept the Armenian claim, and reaserch it themselves, consult some academics and historians the majoirty of them change their mind...

Some interesting facts about the "Genocide" claim:

Below is a list of non Turkish who reject, or consider the issue controversial:

1- Batkay, William, Associate Professor of Political Science, Montclair State University;
2 - Childs, Timothy (dec.), former Professor of Ottoman History, Johns Hopkins University;
3 - Courbage, Youssef, Researcher, National Institute of Demographic Studies, Paris France.
4 - Cuthell, David C., Executive Director of the Institute of Turkish Studies and AssociateProfessor of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University;
5 - Davison, Roderic (dec.), former Professor of Ottoman and Turkish history, GeorgeWashington University;
6 - Duben, Alan, Professor of History, Istanbul Bilgi University;
7 - Dumont, Paul, Chairman of Turcology Department, March Bloch University, Strasbourg, France;
8 - Dunér, Bertil, former Senior Researcher, The Swedish Institute of International Affairs,Stockholm, Sweden;
9 - Dyer, Gwynne, Ph.D. in Ottoman Military history and Journalist;
10 - Erickson, Edward J., researcher at Birmingham University,
11 - Retired Lieutenant-Colonel (U.S. Army);Fargues, Philippe, Senior Research, National Institute of Demographic Studies, Paris, France;
12 - Fromkin, David, Professor of International Relations, History, and Law, BostonUniversity;
13 - Georgeon, François, Senior researcher, (CNRS) National Center for Scientific Research,Paris, France;
14 - Gunter, Michael M., Professor of Political Science, Tennessee Technical University;
15 - Hurewitz, Jacob Coleman (dec.), former Professor of Middle Eastern Politics, Columbia University;
16 - Jäckel, Eberhard, Professor Emeritus of Modern World History, Stuttgart University;
17 - Levy, Avigdor, Professor of Near Eastern and Judaic Studies, Brandeis University;
18 - Lewis, Bernard, Professor Emeritus of Middle Eastern History, Princeton University;
19 - Lewy, Guenter, Professor Emeritus of Middle Eastern History, MassachusettsUniversity;
20 - Lowry, Heath, M. Kemal Ataturk Professor of Ottoman and Modern Turkish Studies,Princeton University;
21 - Mango, Andrew, Author, Historian and Researcher, University of London;
22 - Mantran, Robert, (dec.) Former Professor of Turcology, University of Aix-Marseille,France;
23 - McCarthy, Justin, Professor of History, University of Louisville;
24 - Nora, Pierre, former Professor of Contemporary History, The School of High Studies inSocial Sciences (EHESS, Paris), Member of the French academy, Paris, France;
25 - Oberling, Pierre, Professor of Ethonology, Hunter College, CUNY;Rémond René (dec.), former president, The National Foundation of Political Sciences, Paris;
26 - Roux, Jean-Paul, Former Director of Research (CNRS), National Center for ScientificResearch , Paris, France;
27 - Rustow, Dunkwart A. (dec.), former Distinguished Professor of History, CUNYGraduate School;
28 - Salt, Jeremy, Visiting Associate Professor, Bilkent University;
29 - Shaw, Stanford J. (dec.), former Professor of Ottoman and Turkish History, UCLA;
30 - Stone, Norman, Professor of International Relations, Bilkent University;
31 - Strachan, Hew, Professor of Contemporary History, Oxford University;
32 - Veinstein, Gilles, Professor of Turkish and Ottoman History, Collège de France;
33 - Wieviorka, Annette, Senior Researcher (CNRS), National Center for Scientific Research, Paris, France;
34 - Williams, Brian, Associate Professor of History, University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth;
35 - Yapp, Malcolm E., Professor Emeritus of History, University of London, School of Oriental and African Studies;
36 - Zarcone, Thierry, Senior Researcher in Turkish history (CNRS), National Center for Scientific Research, Paris, France.
37 - Zeidner, Robert F., Ph.D. in Ottoman History, University of Utah.

The "Genocide" claims are:
— A thesis highly critized by the majority of historians specialist of Ottoman history, like Bernard Lewis, and authors who worked about the 1915-1916 events, like Guenter Lewy;
— A one-sided thesis, who forgott the massacres perpetrated by Armenian gangs, especially between 1914 and 1922 (see the archeological evidence of it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Acsn-De8vCQ);
— A tool of Russia orchestrated to divide NATO and the European Union;
— A way for nationalist Armenian parties (Dashnak, Hunchak, Ramkavar) to control millions of people, who should not be called "Armenians", but Americans, French or Australians;
— A way of demonization of the whole Turkish people, called "Turco-Mongol killers" by many Armenian activists.

THE SIX T’S OF THE TURKISH-ARMENIAN CONFLICT

While the unsuspecting public may be forgiven for taking the blatant and ceaseless Armenian propaganda at face value and believing Armenian falsifications merely because they are repeated so often, (do some research on how much money, time and effort is spent by the Armenians worldwide on this cause.) it is difficult and painful for anybody who has some abitlity to do some unbiased research.

Allogations of the so called "Genocide" are RACIST and dishonest because they ignore and fail to acknowledge the Muslim population killed during the same years. The numbers of Muslims killed are much higher than the Armenian allogations of 1500 000.

They are dishonest because the dismiss the below:

1 - TUMULT (as in numerous Armenian armed uprisings between 1882 and 1920)

2 - TERRORISM (by well-armed Armenian nationalists and militias victimizing Ottoman-Muslims between 1882-1920)

3 - TREASON (Armenians joining the invading enemy armies as early as 1914 and lasting until 1921)

4 - TERRITORIAL DEMANDS (where Armenians were a minority, not a majority, attempting to establish Greater Armenia, the would-be first apartheid of the 20th Century with a Christian minority ruling over a Muslim majority )

5 - TURKISH SUFFERING AND LOSSES (i.e. those caused by the Armenian nationalists: 524,000 Muslims, mostly Turks, met their tragic end at the hands of Armenian revolutionaries during WWI, per Turkish Historical Society. This figure is not to be confused with about 2.5 million Muslim dead who lost their lives due to non-Armenian causes during WWI. Grand total: more than 3 million, according to Prof. Justin McCarthy.)

6 - TERESET (temporary resettlement) triggered by the first five T’s above and amply documented as such; not to be equated to the Armenian misrepresentations as genocide.)

Further notes on the term "Genocide"

1 - Genocide is a legal, technical term precisely defined by the U.N. 1948 convention (Like all proper laws, it is not retroactive to 1915.)
2- Genocide verdict can only be given by a "competent court" after "due process" where both sides are properly represented and evidence mutually cross examined.
3- For a genocide verdict, the accusers must prove “intent” at a competent court and after due process. The Armenians throughout the 94 years have failed to present a case. The presented evidence mostly falls into five major categories: hearsay, mis-representations, exaggerations, forgeries, and “other”.
4- Such a "competent court" was never convened in the case of Turkish-Armenian conflict and a genocide verdict does not exist (save a Kangaroo court in occupied Istanbul in 1920 where partisanship, vendettas, and revenge motives left no room for due process.)
5- The Genocide claim is political, not historical or factual. It reflects bias against Turks. Therefore, the term genocide must be used with the qualifier "alleged", for scholarly objectivity and truth.