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
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
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
