3108) ARF-CUP Relations Under Ottoman Constitutional Rule by Dikran Kaligian And Comments by Sukru Aya

The Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) and the Hnchak Party entered into a dialogue with Turkish opposition groups in Paris in 1900 and took part in the First Congress of Ottoman Opposition Forces in 1902. At the end of 1907, the Second Congress of Ottoman Opposition Forces resolved to overthrow the Sultan and to restore the Ottoman constitution using much more radical means, including refusal to pay taxes, propaganda, and armed resistance, if necessary. . . .

Thus, the successful Constitutional Revolution of 1908, initiated by a rebellion of the Turkish army in Macedonia, was greeted with jubilation by all opposition parties and much of the population of the empire.

The ARF published and distributed a proclamation that celebrated the success of the revolution and looked forward to freedom, equality, and justice under the constitutional regime. Accordingly, the party published a program that recognized the territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire. The program called for a federal form of government with a decentralized administration that would provide the widest degree of local autonomy.

The CUP (Committee of Union and Progress or Ittihad) and the ARF became key players in Ottoman constitutional politics.

For the ARF to influence government policies to improve conditions for the Armenians, it would have to work closely with the CUP. Communication between the parties was immediately hampered, however, by the fact that neither was headquartered in the imperial capital, Constantinople.

At the end of 1908, elections were held throughout the empire and a multi-ethnic parliament was seated. Of the 11 Armenians elected, 4 were ARF members representing the eastern provinces. The restoration of the constitution allowed the Armenian parties to openly campaign in the elections and start publishing newspapers within the empire.

In this atmosphere of increasing liberties, an armed insurrection broke out on April 12, 1909 in Constantinople and succeeded in driving the CUP out of the city. Liberal opponents of the CUP as well as reactionaries and supporters of Sultan Abdul Hamid supported the coup. However, within two weeks, troops under Mahmut Sevket Pasha had suppressed the revolt. Taking advantage of the political unrest, anti-Armenian massacres broke out in the city of Adana and the towns and villages of Adana province. In all, some 25,000 Armenians perished in the two rounds of massacres.

The Adana massacres created the first major test for ARF-CUP relations. The ARF had to decide, in the face of Armenian public opinion, whether to continue its cooperation with the CUP. This was dependent, on the one hand, on an evaluation of the degree of culpability of the CUP. On the other hand, the ARF had to weigh the substantial potential benefits to the Armenian community and all Ottoman citizens if the CUP instituted a true constitutional regime.

Weighing the Options

The ARF found itself in a serious dilemma. The party was torn between its solidarity with the progressive elements of the CUP and its revulsion at the murderous acts of its chauvinist elements.

The Western Bureau desired to help the progressive elements consolidate power within the party and the empire. Yet should the progressives lose the upper hand, the consequences for the Armenians would be deadly. The ARF self-defense units had been disbanded, which would leave the population in the eastern provinces and Cilicia at the mercy of Kurdish tribes or Turkish mobs.

After weighing all these considerations, the Western Bureau decided to make a final attempt at continued cooperation with the CUP. The attempt would be conditional on the government taking action on a number of critical items arising from the massacres.

The CUP took great pains to reassure the ARF of their sincerity and support of reforms. They met in Salonika to draw up an accord that committed the two parties to preserve the empire, provide an increased devolution of power to the provinces, and to defend the constitution against reactionary movements.

The agreement to continue cooperation was a serious political gamble by the ARF. The credibility that the ARF had gained through years of self-defense actions and political education and organizing activities would be lost if the CUP did not deliver on its promises. But such was the belief of the ARF leadership in the benefits of constitutionalism that they were willing to give it one more try.

There would no longer be an endless supply of patience or goodwill, however. There was a heightened level of distrust by the party ranks, and power struggles within the CUP would have to be monitored closely to determine which group held the upper hand. The CUP’s room to maneuver was thus seriously circumscribed. If the CUP were unable to deliver promptly on its promises, due to the serious institutional and political obstacles, the ARF would be unable to give much slack before breaking off relations.

ARF-CUP Relations

For the first 18 months after the Constitutional Revolution, the Western Bureau’s relations with the CUP were irregular due to internal problems within the CUP. The relationship and communications started to become more regular at the beginning of 1910 when a “Joint Body” was formed. It was composed of three ARF members and three CUP members.

A critical component of the relations between the parties was correcting the many false reports and rumors that were circulating. In order to foster support of the constitution and constitutional regime, it was also important to send fieldworkers into the provinces to extol the virtues of a constitutional regime and to counsel patience for improvements. From the beginning, the ARF stressed the need for joint ARF-CUP delegations, as they would demonstrate to Turks and Armenians that the constitution would not benefit any one ethnic group to the exclusion of others.

The Western Bureau felt obliged to take action as for more than a year their numerous protests and demands had remained unanswered and the condition of the provinces had gradually worsened. On March 20, 1910, they sent Harutiun Shahrigian and Arshag Vramian to Salonika with official documents to meet with the CUP Central Committee members. The most important subjects were the lands issue, the security of the Armenians, and the educational issue. Their reception was very cordial. The Central Committee tried in every way to convince the Bureau representatives that the CUP’s policy had not changed toward the ARF. They emphasized that they knew that the Armenians had stood by the constitution and loyally supported it. The Bureau deemed the results of the Salonika meeting to have been satisfactory.

In July, the Western Bureau reported that their relationship with the CUP had become closer and friendlier. The unrest in the interior had brought home to the CUP the need to have the backing of a trustworthy organization like the ARF.Also, the appointment of

Talaat and Cavid Beys to the cabinet created a steadier channel for communication and improved relations between the parties.

Yet, in reporting on two years of relations with the CUP, the Western Bureau stated that despite its best efforts, the Joint Body meetings did not convene regularly; sometimes months would pass without a meeting. From its formation until mid-1911, only 16 meetings were held. Among the reasons cited were the frequent crises within the CUP or in their ministries, their inexperience and inefficiency, and their discomfort at having to admit their inability to accomplish the objectives agreed upon with the ARF. Outside of the formal meetings, however, there were a number of encounters with individual ministers or CUP leaders that were productive.

The Deterioration of Relations with the CUP

The ARF-CUP joint body met in February 1911. They had a heated discussion regarding events and conditions in the provinces. The CUP representatives had to admit that their party was not a strong presence in the interior.

The Western Bureau later had a joint meeting with the Armenian parliamentary deputies. They concluded that: the government had not shown good will towards the Armenians, protests had been growing stronger in the provinces, local government employees were still biased against Armenians, and the government had not made any strong and serious effort to change these conditions. On this basis, the meeting decided to again send

Vramian and Shahrigian to Salonika to present the lands, security, and educational problems faced by the Armenians to the CUP and to demand satisfaction. The Bureau stated that they would determine their position towards the CUP based on its response to the ARF demands. Vramian and Shahrigian met with the CUP Central Committee and reported that they had received satisfactory responses to their demands. The lands issue was the top ARF priority and the CUP agreed that it would be resolved administratively and not sent to parliament. On security issues, they agreed to try to send trouble-making beys out of the country to prevent the nomads from doing further damage.

The joint body met in Constantinople in April. The Bureau decided to postpone other issues and concentrate only on the lands and security issues at the meeting. At the meeting, the CUP agreed to take steps to control persecution, although it would have to be done over time. To do this, it was agreed to have the government arm all villages, Armenian and Kurdish. This would allow the villagers to defend themselves against nomadic Kurds.

On April 24, the Western Bureau met with Talaat, Haji Adil, and Midhat Beys. They discussed the promises made at the Salonika meeting. The CUP representatives explained that they were in a weak position and would be unable to push for any reforms for the present. They proposed to have their deputies introduce the issues in parliament and they had already passed on copies of the accord articles to the deputies.

In June, it was noted that the Armenian deputies would soon be presenting a written application detailing their specific demands to the Interior Ministry and that the Western Bureau would present the same to the CUP. The response to these demands would help determine the position of the Bureau towards the government until the ARF World Congress.

These were the circumstances when the ARF Sixth World Congress convened in Constantinople in the summer of 1911. The main agenda item was the question of cooperation with the CUP. Despite ratifying the past actions concerning cooperation, the meeting was extremely critical of the CUP’s duplicity and failure to live up to its promises. After evaluating the prospects and dangers of continued cooperation, the World

Congress passed a resolution that stated: “. . . in the three years of constitutional rule the government’s policies not only haven’t created an improved life. . . but they have generally given way to creating distrust between peoples and the denial of national rights. The CUP, rather than progressively eliminating the land privileges of the feudal classes left over from the Middle Ages, has encouraged those elements. . . The CUP has gradually withdrawn from constitutional and democratic principles. The CUP has failed to take steps to combat and cleanse itself of right-wing elements. . .” The resolution directed the Western Bureau to send the CUP a description of the anarchy in the Armenian provinces and an ultimatum that if action wasn’t taken by a set deadline, they would end cooperation between the parties.

The 1912 Elections and the End of Cooperation with the CUP

The lack of progress in land reform and improved conditions for Armenians, and the ascendancy of reactionary elements within and without the CUP, had brought ARF-CUP cooperation almost to the breaking point. Early 1912 would bring an immediate test of this cooperation in the form of parliamentary elections. In the run up to the elections, the CUP leadership felt it had to strengthen the cabinet, and its own position in it. Therefore three CUP members were added to the cabinet: Haji Adil as Interior Minister, Talaat as Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, and Cavid as Minister of Public Works.

The agreement between the CUP and Western Bureau was that Armenian candidates would be put forward in all locations where the Armenian population comprised a significant percentage. In planning for an Armenian bloc in parliament, the Eastern Bureau was counting not only those seats conceded to them by the CUP, but also those Armenians who had joined the CUP.

Negotiations continued with the CUP agreeing upon 13 Armenian deputies, to that point, and which districts they would be elected from. Negotiations continued regarding the other 10 seats. However, they found that the local CUP was trying to renege on its promises of Armenian representation for a number of locations including Erzingan,

Diyarbekir, Kharpert, and Marash. The Western Bureau’s relations with the CUP deteriorated greatly as the electoral machinations continued. The Bureau had concentrated on reaching an agreement on improvements in conditions for Armenians before they began negotiations specifically on parliamentary representation, as the former was such an urgent issue. The CUP did not deal honestly with the ARF, particularly when they improperly decreased the number of Armenian deputies to be elected. Even more important to the ARF, they complied with almost none of the demands contained in the accord they had signed with the ARF two and a half months before the elections.

As a result, the Bureau presented an ultimatum to the CUP that provided a final chance to implement the accord conditions including: forming a committee to oversee accord implementation, creating Armenian and Kurdish village guards in Van and Bitlis provinces, ensuring the right of return with a government subsidy for Armenian refugees, recruiting 200 Armenian soldiers for each Armenian province to serve as gendarmes, and appropriating promised government funds for Armenian schools.

If the CUP failed to order these administrative changes within 15 days, the ARF would end cooperation, consistent with the decision of the Sixth World Congress. The Eastern Bureau disagreed with the Western Bureau’s condemnations of the CUP. They called for the Bureau to keep perspective on the fact that the CUP signing of the preliminary agreement before the election did not mean that all its points would be immediately executed.

The Eastern Bureau argued that even though the World Congress had authorized the Western Bureau to break relations, it was premature to do so. There had been changes in conditions and the elections and other political complexities had not been anticipated by the congress. They felt that the ARF should wait a little longer for the CUP to regroup its strength and thus have a chance to execute the ARF demands.

On July 15, 1912, Said Pasha’s cabinet won a vote of confidence; yet two days later, it fell. The Western Bureau saw that they were in a no-win situation. In spite of the CUP’s deceptions, manipulations, false promises, and delays in reforms, they were still the only party that the ARF could negotiate with. The Bureau saw the CUP as a lesser evil when compared to their opponents, and for that reason ended its press criticism of them. It was important to jolt them into awareness but a complete disintegration of interrelations would be bad for the Armenians.

During the second week of August, the bureaus announced in “Azadamard” in Constantinople and in “Haratch” in Erzerum that they had broken off relations with the CUP. Further they stated that they would maintain a position of neutrality during the conflict between the Turkish parties in the parliament.

The outbreak of the First Balkan War and the party’s break with the CUP increased the danger to the Armenian population. Thus, Rosdom and Mourad [of Sepastia] went to Constantinople to meet with Simon Zavarian, the only agenda item of their meeting being how to arm themselves and protect the people. In the course of the meeting, they determined that to reestablish the self defense structure was going to require years, money, resources, and leadership, none of which was currently available.

During 1913, the ARF and the Patriarchate worked together to gain the support of the European powers for an effective reform plan for the Armenian provinces. With German support, the Ottomans succeeded in delaying the appointment of two European inspectors general until the eve of World War I.

The ARF Eighth World Congress and the Approach of War

The ARF World Congress was held in Erzerum in August 1914. A committee of nine was formed to stay and while they were meeting, Dr. Behaeddin Shakir and Naji Bey arrived as representatives of the CUP and the government. They met for three days and asked what the ARF stance would be if Russia invaded the Ottoman Empire. The ARF representatives responded that the party would obviously defend the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire.

After lengthy discussions, the CUP representatives disclosed that the government had decided to take advantage of what they hoped would be the German defeat of France and Russia to take care of their own unfinished business to recover lost lands. Further, should the Russians be completely defeated, they would advance to the Caucasus to either conquer or incite a revolution. The Armenians were a key to success, because they believed that the ARF had the power and ability to persuade the Russian Armenians to remain loyal to the Russian government until a critical juncture at which time they would shift their allegiance to the Turks. The government had no interest in occupying the Caucasus, but merely wanted to pull it out of Russia’s orbit and then give it autonomy.

The ARF representatives responded that Russian Armenians no longer had the enthusiasm for Ottoman constitutional rule they had had from 1908–10. The errors made by the government and CUP in regards to Ottoman Armenians would give Russian Armenians no confidence that support for the Ottoman government would improve conditions for their compatriots across the border.

In Constantinople, Talaat expressed his disappointment in the party’s stance to ARF parliamentarian Armen Garo. The Bureau called a consultative meeting with its key members as well as Krikor Zohrab. The meeting was divided between those who expected a speedy Russian victory over the Ottoman armies and those who feared a lengthy campaign fought largely in Armenian- populated lands. In either case, volunteer units had to be ready to defend the Armenian population if massacres began, while somehow not appearing to be a fifth column and thus providing a pretext for such massacres. This was the tightrope the ARF had to walk as the guns of war approached.

---

The Armenian Weekly, April 2009 Magazine

---

---

---

Compliments and Comments by Sukru Server Aya

For restricted posting by armenians-1915.blogspot.com only

a- The article brings new detailed knowledge on the CUP - ARF cooperation, which I would like to quote in my new book with relative references.

b- Garekin Pastermadjian gave even a better picture regarding the CUP offer to ARF in August 1914, at the 8th Congress in Erzerum. (Why Armenia .. Free)

c- The article should have mentioned that the protocol for actioning Autonomy was finally signed in Early February between Russia and Ottoman Empire and that the "agreed Inspector Generals" (Westenek and Hoff) came to Istanbul to go to Van and Erzerum, but the project was annled at the last minute when WW1 was to start for surei.(Morgenthau refers to his talks with Westenek). Apparently ARF (after consulting Federation in Tiblisi who asked Russia, France and Britain) missed a very unique and important chance offered to them under Germany's guarantee. This historical fact is a ENOUGH evidence, that Ottomans never had any plans to hurt Armenians, when they needed and depended on their cooperation, based on several previous contacts and agreements.

d- As a contribution to the cause of "what was lost when ARF turned down CUP" I attach an English Translation of the "Draft of Organic Organization" in the Automous Inspectorates, which is self explanatory. This document was found in the British Library as per given reference, and I do not have other details about any other similar documents or regulations. This annex (with your knowledge) will be added at the bottom of above article, in my new book chapter.

Kind regards
S S Aya

---

---

Download The Document

---

.

Read More

3017) ARMENIANS Cannot Get A Thing!

(Translated from Turkish)
“TAKVIM” Daily Newspaper, Feb.22, 2010 (page 1 & 11) (By Arda Uskan)


Page 1:

* Sukru Server Aya, aged 80, who dedicated his life to research the Armenian allegations, has disclosed documented truths to TAKVIM.

* Armenians who expect indemnity from Turkey, cannot get a thing, because we paid compensation to USA in 1937, the account is settled!

Page 11: THE TURK WHO DEFIES DIASPORA

(Businessman Sukru Server Aya says, American Armenians cannot get a thing from Turkey.)

While Turkey is giving a . . fight against Armenian genocide allegations, individual struggles continue as well. Sukru Server Aya, a businessman aged 80, has given some 25 years of his life to the Armenian allegations. Aya has written two books on this subject and hits on the Armenian diaspora with their own weapons. Aya has completed his book “Genocide Traders and Truths” in some four years. As an example Aya shows Armen Garo cod named Armenian terrorist’s book (who had bombed the Ottoman Bank in 1896). Aya objects the draft resolution for Armenian demands, to be voted on in the near future in the US Congress.

Reputed businessman says that “in the draft that they want to pass, it is stated that Turks killed 1.5 million Armenians. But he adds that at the same period of time, 1.411.000 Armenians is indicated to be alive. In connection with the compensation demands of Armenians, Aya speaks as follows: The American Armenians cannot get even a single chip, because in 1937 Turkey paid USA an indemnity on this matter. Diaspora collects annually about 1.5 billion Dollars as contributions and about 100 to 150 millions of this money goes to the Armenians in Armenia. The difference is shared among themselves.
******************************
For more details and documents:
Armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2008/11/2644-free-consolation-versus-frail.html

---

.

Read More

3008) Conference Notes: Turkish–Armenian Relations: London School of Economics: 29 Jan 2010

---

A CONFERENCE ON ‘TURKISH – ARMENIAN RELATIONS’
29 January 2010, 6 pm
London School of Economics, London WC2B 4JF

GUEST SPEAKERS

Prof. Türkkaya Ataöv
"What Really Happened on April 24, 1915?"

Asst Prof Bestami Sadi Bilgiç
"The Question of “Genocide” in Turkish Foreign Policy: The Cases of Armenians, Pontic Rums and Assyrians"

Chaired By Dr Andrew Mango
The Way Forward

Organised by THE FEDERATION OF TURKISH ASSOCIATIONS UK
www.turkishfederationuk.com

---

This conference has been organised in the memory of 34 Turkish diplomats and other innocent victims who were murdered by various Armenian terrorist groups between 1973 and 1985. Most of the perpetrators have never been brought to justice, and of the few that were, only some were imprisoned and given very light sentences.

---

Summary
The Federation of Turkish Associations UK held a conference at the London School of Economics (LSE) in memory of the Turkish diplomats killed by Armenian terrorists between 1973 and 1985. The conference titled "Turkish-Armenian Relations" was chaired by Dr Andrew Mango and the guest speakers were Prof Turkkaya Ataov and Asst. Prof Bestami Bilgic.

The conference began with a one minute silence in memory of the murdered diplomats and was well attended by many diplomats, NGO representatives, academics and students including the Turkish Ambassador to the United Kingdom HE Yigit Alpogan, the Turkish Consul General Bahadir Kaleli, Turkish Military Naval Attaché Gp Captain Ozdem Kocer and the President of the Federation of Turkish Associations UK Sener Saglam. This was the fourth year this event has been held and has become an important calendar date for the Turkish community. The event was also attended by several members of the Armenian community.

Between 1973 and 1985, 110 armed attacks were carried out in 21 different countries by Armenian terrorist organisations, in which a total of 34 Turkish diplomats, 8 members of their immediate families and 4 bystanders lost their lives, and 15 Turks and 66 citizens of other nationalities were injured. . .

---

FTA UK’s opening speech:

Ambassador, Dear Guests, and Distinguished Panellists,

The Federation of Turkish Associations UK welcomes you to the 4th Memorial Conference in London, organised in the memory of 34 Turkish diplomats and other innocent victims who were murdered by various Armenian terrorist groups between 1973 and 1985. Most of the perpetrators of these terrible attacks have never been brought to justice, and of the few that were, only some were imprisoned and given very light sentences.

FTA UK is an umbrella organisation serving various needs of the Turkish community. We think the best way to solve these problems is through understanding and research. FTA UK condemns all forms of terrorism and wishes a peaceful and better world for all human beings regardless of their race, colour or religious beliefs.

Dear Guests,

May I invite everyone to stand for one minute’s silence in respect of the murdered Turkish diplomats and all the innocent lives lost during that terrible terrorist campaign?
---
Dear Guests,

On behalf of the Federation of Turkish Associations in the UK I would like to thank everybody here for attending this evening.

Now, I would like to leave the floor to our chair Dr Andrew Mango.

We wish everyone an informative conference.

Thank you!

---

Speakers’ Biographies

Dr Andrew Mango: Dr. Andrew Mango was born in 1926 in Istanbul, where he started his education at the English High School for Boys, going on to the School of Oriental and African Studies in London to study Classical Persian and Arabic. He received a PhD in 1955 for a thesis on the legend of Alexander in Persian Islamic poetry. He joined the External Services (now World Service) of the BBC in 1947, and was in charge of broadcasts in Turkish between 1958 and 1972, before being promoted as Head of the South European and then also of the French Language Services. After his retirement from the BBC in 1986 he has worked full-time as researcher, writer and consultant on modern Turkey.

Prof Türkkaya Ataöv: Türkkaya Ataöv is Professor Emeritus in International Relations at Ankara University, Turkey. He did his graduate work in the United States, where he received two MAs (NYU & Syracuse Univ.) and a PhD (1959, Syracuse Univ., NY). He taught at Ankara University for more than four decades and lectured in several universities abroad. He is the author of close to 140 books, a few hundred academic treaties, and a few thousand newspaper articles. His writings have been translated into 20 different languages. He has been elected to central executive positions of UN-related international organisations, dealing with racial discrimination, human rights, terrorism, nuclear war, and exchange of prisoners of war. Professor Ataöv published 80 books/booklets on the Armenian issue, was invited as "witness of authority" by the Paris court to the two trials (1984 and 1985) of Armenian terrorists, participated in the UN Geneva meetings (1985) of the Human Rights Commission on the Genocide Convention, and partook in several meetings of the European Parliament that dealt with the Armenian issue.

Dr Bestami Sadi Bilgiç: Dr. Bestami Sadi Bilgic is an Assistant Professor of International Affairs at the Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University. Currently he is taking part in a research project on the Ottoman minorities at the Turkish Historical Society in Ankara. Dr. Bilgic’s research interests are Modern Greek History and Politics, Late Ottoman-Early Republican History and Minorities. Dr. Bilgic is a graduate of Bilkent University where he earned a B.A. in International Relations in 1997 and an M.A. in International Relations in 1999. After spending the academic year of 1999-2000 in Greece doing research on the history of Turkish-Greek relations, he went to the United States for his doctoral studies and in 2004 he got his PhD in the field of Modern History at the George Washington University. Dr. Bilgic has published on the history of Turkish-Greek relations, and Turkish Foreign Policy.

---

Opening remarks by Dr Andrew Mango

This meeting, like its predecessors, is being held to commemorate Turkish diplomats killed by Armenian terrorists between 1973 and 1985. The first to be murdered were the Turkish consul and his assistant in Los Angeles in January 1973 – thirty-seven years ago. Terrorism has since become so common that news of it is often reduced to statistics. But now and then the statistics come to life. For me the moment came when Armenian terrorists killed Necla, the wife of Zeki Kuneralp, the Turkish ambassador in Madrid. I got to know Necla Hanim and Zeki Bey well, during Zeki Bey’s two terms as ambassador in London. It so happened, that I called on Zeki Bey in Madrid a few months before his wife was murdered. The Turkish ambassador lived in an old Spanish mansion with large French windows opening to the garden.

As we had lunch, I asked Zeki Bey whether it was sensible to sit behind large panes of glass at a time when terrorists were shooting at Turkish diplomatic targets. He quoted Schiller to me: “The man who doesn’t know how to die, doesn’t know how to live.” He didn’t know that not he, but his wife was to be the next victim. A tragic irony marked the assassination. Zeki Bey’s father had been lynched by Turkish nationalists who loathed him for his criticism of Turkey’s resistance to the Allies after World War I, and called him “Artin Kemal”, “Kemal the Armenian”. The purpose of terrorism is to perpetuate hatred. Zeki Bey tried to prevent this by encouraging research into the long centuries of peaceful coexistence of Turks and Armenians. Our purpose here tonight should also be to prevent the perpetuation of ethnic hatred through the propagation of myths. Untruths – to use parliamentary language – are constantly being repeated. In the last few weeks, for example, articles I read about an exhibition of the American modernist painter Arshil Gorky, who was of Armenian origin, said that Gorky’s mother had died when the Armenians fled from the siege of Van, and that the Turkish army butchered 2 million Armenians in 1920. In fact there was no siege of Van by the Turks, but an Armenian rising in Van in 1915 which facilitated the capture of the city by the Russian army and resulted in the murder of many of the city’s Muslim inhabitants and the flight of the rest. Nor did the Turkish army kill 2 million Armenians in 1920. In fact there had been 1.5 million Armenians in the whole of Ottoman Anatolia when WWI started, and close on a million of them survived as refugees. What happened were four waves of ethnic cleansing by Armenians of Turks and of Armenians by Turks, which left more Muslims than Armenians dead, as the front moved west, then east twice before a frontier was finally drawn between Turkey and Armenia in December 1920. But I’m impinging here on the talk by our first speaker, Professor Türkkaya Ataöv of Ankara University, who has devoted years of study to the tragic history of Turkish-Armenian relations. His subject tonight is the deportation of Armenians by the Ottoman authorities in 1915 – what lay behind the decision and what justification there was for it.

---

What Really Happened on April 24, 1915? Why and How?"

By Türkkaya Ataöv
Emeritus Professor of IR at Ankara University

My short talk may be summarized as follows: What really happened on April 24, 1915 and why? Please, do not expect me to summarize Armenian-Turkish relations throughout history, or review all the main points of what occurred just before, during and a little after the First World War. That cannot be done within a matter of about half an hour, the time allocated to me here. I have been studying this very subject, inter alia, since the early 1980s, and published so far 82 books and booklets on it.

I shall concentrate, instead, only (1) on the circumstances related to the Ottoman decision to relocate the greater part, though not all, of the Armenian population and also (2) on the arrests on the 24th of April, a date some Armenian circles are bringing pressure on some foreign parliaments to accept as a “genocide day”.

Almost all Armenian and many Western writers argue that the Armenian revolt at the beginning of the war posed no actual threat to the security of the Ottoman state or its armies facing the better mobilized Allies in several fronts. Apart from a rather long list of commentators, I recall, about a decade ago, a generalized statement by a Purdue University professor, Robert Melson, also the author of a book, in his own words, “on the origins of the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust”. He said, in my presence, that the Ottoman Armenians were calm, weak, gentle, peaceful, helpless, unprotected, unarmed, non-belligerent, good Christian, and totally vulnerable civilians, mostly old men, women and children, upon whom, he added, well-armed regular Ottoman troops ascended with their full force, killing perhaps millions. The Perdue University professor left the auditorium without listening to my reply. The extensive bibliography (of fifteen pages) in his book, by the way, refers to works on Indonesia, Cuba, Cambodia, or “Marx against the peasant”, with no mention of anything that I and my colleagues in Turkey have published on the theme of his book. I personally referred to a host of Armenian writers and their collaborators in many of my publications. My own book of bibliography contains no less than 403 such sources, with the majority of which I hardly agree.

Some other writers, including myself, conclude, on the other hand, that the Armenian armed rebellion constituted a great military danger. The Armenians were hard-working, innovative, enterprising, creative, and artistically-inclined, but hardly pacific and unarmed. The Turkish historian Dr. Erdal Ilter’s 300-pp bibliography on the same subject covers, not only printed Armenian works (almost as comprehensive as those by Hovannissian, Salmaslian and Vassilian, all Armenians), but also many Turkish treatises that offer vast amount of concrete evidence from archival material, reports, yearbooks, theses, dissertations, books, booklets, albums, and recorded witness accounts on Armenian assaults on Turkish and other Muslim quarters, villages and cities and their shedding of blood during war-time.

I am not going to utilize here Turkish material, which nevertheless must be treated of primary importance. If one wishes to establish the British policy in 1588 in respect to that country’s policy towards Spain just before the battle against the great Armada or in 1939 before the German attack on Poland, the first and foremost sources would be the Foreign Office archives. Likewise, if we want to find out what the Ottoman policies regarding the Armenians during the First World War, the rich Ottoman archives are equally indispensable.
However, I shall generally rely here on the evidence provided by third parties as well as by some crucial Armenian sources that should strike one as confessions. C.F. Dixon-Johnson, Edwards J. Erickson, Bernard Lewis, Guenter Lewy, Heath Lowry, Justin McCarthy, Nogales Mendez, Stanford J. Shaw, Masud Akhtar Sheikh and Samuel A. Weeds are some of the non-Turkish scholars. One may also remember the declaration, dated May 19, 1985, of more than fifty American academics, who drew the attention of the U.S. House of Representatives for a fairer treatment of the subject, stripped of anti-Turkish prejudice.

Perhaps the pioneer of an impartial approach was C.F. Dixon-Johnson’s book, courageously printed in the crucial year of 1916 (when the British and the Turks were fighting in Gelibolu, Sinai, Palestine and Mesopotamia), criticizing the propaganda that created more bias “against an already misjudged and badly maligned enemy.” He reminded the British readers how critical the situation was for Turkey, which faced “a matter of life and death.” He added that unless the danger was removed, “the Turkish army on the Caucasus would have been hopelessly cut off...”

Edward J. Erickson, an uncommon Western scholar, presents a comprehensive study on the connection between Armenian insurgency and Ottoman security, in a long article in War in History (2008). There exists, of course, ample evidence in the Ottoman archives on how heavily the Armenians had been armed and how some hundred thousands of Muslim civilians were killed. An average European and an American may be surprised to read in a recent (2003) British book (Dictionary of the First World War by Stephen Pope and Elizabeth-Anne Wheal, p. 34) that the “Armenian rebels slaughtered an estimated 120,000 non-Armenians while the Turkish Army was preoccupied with mobilization.” The authors add that the Armenian rebels took the Ottoman city of Van in April 1915 and proclaimed a provisional government there, and further that the rebels “resumed control in late 1917, killing perhaps another 50,000 non-Armenians.” These are British figures in a book printed in London. Erickson’s fact-finding research “seeks to inform the reader why the Ottoman military reacted in the manner it did.”

Armed Armenian insurrection directly affected the Ottoman 3rd Army in eastern Anatolia and the Ottoman 4th Army in the Syrian-Palestinian front and indirectly influenced but certainly perturbed the position of the Ottoman 6th Army in Mesopotamia. The logistical resupply links of the latter were tied up with the network of the first two armies. The soldier who fights at the front does not carry with himself his whole food and ammunition for the entire duration of the war years. Ovens and bakeries for all kinds of food, fodder for animals (horses, mules, camels and oxen), ammunition and munitions, field hospitals and tents, doctors and medicine, veterinary stations, repair shops, supply depots, basic training facilities, labour and transportation units, wagons and similar support groups were all situated in some hundreds of kilometres behind the fronts. The Ottoman state having suffered through the Tripolitanian (Trablusugarb) War (1911) against Italy and two Balkan Wars (1911-12) opposing the coordinated attacks of Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia, was consequently in very short supply of food, ammunition and medicine. Its stockpiles were about half of the minimum of the other belligerents. Its railways, built by foreigners for the latter’s economic profits, were not designed to serve Ottoman mobilization and supply centres. There were even two uncompleted gaps at Pozanti and Osmaniye. Animal-drawn movement was the main transportation system on immeasurable-looking roads that ran from Sivas to Erzurum and from Diyarbakir to Van.

When the armed hostilities actually started between the Turks and the invading enemies, not only ammunition had to be rushed to the fronts, but also thousands of wounded soldiers had to be carried to the hospitals at the rear. The Ottoman 3rd Army had suffered losses especially at Sarikamis in the east and the 4th Army had to retreat to the Sinai and Palestine following an unsuccessful assault on the Suez Canal. By the Spring of 1915, the 3rd Army had lost half of its men as dead, wounded and POWs, and two-thirds of its animals.

Wide and frequent guerrilla actions and combat operations of armed Armenians in Russian, British and later in French forces were of crucial importance under the circumstances. Quite contrary to the mainstream but arbitrary assertion that the Ottoman Armenians were only an unarmed peaceful lot that had not touched a weapon, two reports submitted by Armenian-Americans to the US Government, later printed in book form in 1924 and 1926, explicitly state (respectively) that “200,000 Armenians fought as independent units or in the Allied ranks” and “more than 200,000 of them fought” on the side of Turkey’s enemies during war time. Consequently, the single-sentence statement of a British professor (David Marshall Lang) in a compendium on the Armenians, that these people “were not all angels” is very much a biased understatement.

Bogos Nubar, the head of the Armenian National Delegation at Versailles (1919) categorically stated, in a letter addressed to the French Foreign Minister, that the “Armenians, since the beginning of the war, had been belligerents.” The Russian Tsar, the Prime Ministers of the Allied Powers and their generals on the battlefield acknowledged the indispensable Armenian armed support. The long list of such confessions and appreciations includes messages of gratitude of Tsar Nicholas the Second, the Russian commanders in the Caucasus (for instance, Count I.I. Vorontsov-Dashkov, Generals Loris Melikoff and Terkhougasoff), D. Lloyd George, Georges Clemenceau, A. J. Balfour, J. Bryce, General E.H.H. Allenby, 116 members of the French Parliament, and many others.

The commanding officers of the Armenian insurgents and war historians of Armenian origin conceded, and even took pride, that they had resorted to arms against the Turks during the war. The title of a post-war book by Armen Garo (Gareguine Pasdermadjian), the former Armenian deputy in the Ottoman Parliament in Istanbul but later a prominent general of the insurgents, asserted for obvious reasons that the Armenians were “A Leading Factor in the Winning of the War.” General Andranik Ozanian, who had led an Armenian contingent in the Bulgarian Army and against the Turks during the Balkan Wars, later joined the Russian forces with his men. Similar armed units, under Dro, Hamazasp and Keri, were ready to move into Erzurum. None other than Samson Harutunian, the president of the Armenian National Bureau, appealed to the Russian Tsar assuring him of their loyalty and adding that they wished to see “the Russian flag wave freely over the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus”.

The Armenians took possession of the ancient city of Van in order to open the way into the interior of Anatolia. Henry Morgenthau, Sr., the US Ambassador reported then that 25,000 armed insurgents had attacked the Muslim quarters causing the inhabitants of the latter to flee for safety. Similar incidents occurred in the neighbouring cities, where thousands of guns, tons of dynamite, bulletins, posters, maps, foreign currency and ciphered messages in Armenian, Russian and French were found in Armenian homes, work places, churches, schools, and bank safes. There were numerous massacres of isolated Muslim villagers by armed Armenians, the Ottoman gendarmerie were attacked openly and frequently, assassinations were carried out, telegraph poles were cut, and roads blocked. The Ottoman functionaries, who collected guns, not only in the eastern Anatolian towns and villages of Askale, Bayburt, Bitlis, Elazig, Erzincan, Kayseri, Malatya, Mus, Sivas, Urfa or Aleppo, but also in Amasya and Adapazari (the latter just next to the capital city of Istanbul), knew that insurgency was worsening considerably.

Bogos Nubar, in a letter dated April 17/30, 1915, and addressed to the Armenian Catholicos of the Adana (Cilicia) region, advised “unified rebellion of the Armenians against the Turkish authorities wherever possible.” The same Armenian leader, in a communiqué sent to Lieut.-General Sir John Maxwell, the Commander-in-Chief of the British Forces in Egypt, assured him to rely on “25,000 Armenian insurgents in Cilicia and on the 15,000 more to come from nearby provinces...to pave the way for the Allies to land forces.” He added that with such a force, they could occupy Musa Dag, Cebel-i Akra, Dört Yol, Iskenderiye, the Beylan Pass, Hacin, Sis, and the like, and that they “could cut the telegraphic wires, destroy railway tracks, blow up bridges, and thus interrupt the enemy’s communication lines” to such an extent that “the Turks will not be able to use their forces against them throughout the winter.” The 4th Army commanders were deeply concerned over the possibility of a concerted Anglo-French amphibious invasion of the Mersin coast, which was already bombarded from the sea several times.

As the Armenian war historian Gen. Gabriel Gorganian recorded in his series of articles in the Boston-based Armenian Review (1967-70), the Armenians fought (as easily comprehensible from the very title of that series) certainly not against the Allies or even the Germans, but against the Turks. The Ottoman leadership knew that their local forces were inadequate to meet the growing threat. The powers that the Turks were fighting in several fronts were in direct contact with the Armenians for coordinated military operations against the common enemy. Initially the 41st Infantry Division and later the 23rd and the 44th Infantry Divisions were forced to abandon their original defence positions and move towards the insurgency areas.

The Ottoman decision-makers, obviously, reacted to an actual internal threat. They had to solve an acute military problem that threatened the security and the total operations of three full-fledged armies in eastern and southern Anatolia. Their reaction was a response to a fast-growing threat. There is no evidence of a premeditated plan of extermination. They initially considered the removal of the Turkish and other Muslim civilians who were running away, in pitiful conditions, from renewed Armenian attacks. The Turks also entertained the idea of exchanging the Muslim minorities in the Caucasus with those Armenians who would rather live in Russia. But when they finally decided on the removal of the bulk of the Armenians principally from the battle zones to the safer areas in the southern territories of the Ottoman state, the military and the civilian leadership knew, via the information gathered from the German General Staff, that the Spanish had already relocated the Cubans in 1898 and that the British had done the same to the Boers and the Blacks in South Africa after the Boer Wars. Moreover, the Turks themselves had temporarily removed groups of the ethnic Bulgarian and Greek minorities in Thrace during the Balkan Wars (1912-13) and the small Greek minority in Gelibolu during the combined Anglo-French assault on the Dardanelles in April 1915. In both cases, these minorities were sent to the resource-rich Aegean region, where they lived rather comfortably and survived.

The first move of the Ottoman Interior Minister (Talât Bey) came on April 24, 1915, when he sent a circular to 14 provinces and 10 counties ordering the termination of the activities of the Armenian revolutionary committees. As well analyzed by Yusuf Sarinay, who reproduced genuine Ottoman documents on those arrested that day, the date in question was destined to become the “Genocide Day” for the Armenians in diaspora. The individuals taken into custody on April 24 were believed to be the master-minds behind the massacre of the Muslims in the east. One reason for the haste was the alarm caused by the suspicion, originally expressed by the German Ambassador in Istanbul, that the Armenians might carry out a series of bomb attacks on April 27, during the anniversary ceremonies of Sultan Mehmet Resat’s accession to the throne.

It was again on April 24, 1915, that 235 high-brows, out of 77,735 Armenians living in Istanbul, were taken out of their homes and offices and moved to Çankiri, a central Anatolian town in the north of Ankara. Although much higher figures are given in various Western sources, which also generally assert that “they were shot” immediately or on their way to a new place, none were killed by the state. Two of them were murdered, however, on personal initiative, and the culprits were summarily tried and executed for manslaughter.

The arrested Armenians were distributed to the homes of the local residents, but were told that they could go out, sit in the cafés, and walk in and around the city but should report to the police station once every 24 hours. They could apply (so did Arsak, the son of Mardiros, and Arsak Diradorian) for daily payments from a special Interior Ministry fund. Perhaps unexpectedly, 44 of them escaped; no less than 14, who proved that they were Armenians but foreign (American, Russian, Iranian, and Bulgarian) nationals, were simply deported. Some (like Vartabet Gomidas) were let go for the need of medical attention (eventually to Vienna in the case of Gomidas). Some were pardoned and allowed to go back to Istanbul or to other cities such as Eskisehir. Some (like Dr. Allahverdian and Hayik Tiryakian) had been mistakenly arrested and consequently released. No charges could be brought on 35 of them and were set free. The rest were sent either to Ayas near Ankara or to Zor in the south. Those whose custody continued were all members of the executive boards of the Armenian Hinchak and the Dashnak Parties, which may now be better described as terrorist organizations in terms of their programs and activities. Some (like Akrik Keresteciyan), who were transferred to Zor, were soon released, however. Dikran Bagdikian, a Dashnak member, died on March 9, 1918, in Ayas, apparently on account of natural causes.

But Krikor Zohrab and Seringulan Vartkes were murdered by two individuals (Ahmed the Circassian and Halil of Galata), both of whom had no official connections whatsoever. They were caught by the Turkish police, tried and found guilty by an Ottoman court, and duly executed by state functionaries.

Most of the Ottoman Armenian population, especially those near the war fronts, were moved towards the south. Catholic and Protestant Armenians, civil servants in the state bureaucracy, army personnel functioning as officers, soldiers, doctors, and medics, some tradesmen, some construction workers and foremen, those working in the Ottoman Bank, Tobacco Administration, and in the foreign embassies and consulates, orphans and widows, the sick, the disabled, and the like were all exempt, together with the members of their families. The Prime Minister’s directive, dated May 30, 1915, set the general guidelines, which included orders for their safety, funds for their upkeep, work equipment in new places and the safekeeping of abandoned property. It was especially underlined that this was certainly not an order for their extermination and that those guilty of attacks and neglect for their protection would be immediately court-martialled and punished severely.

The texts of these orders and their translations into the leading European languages are available in the foreign archives. Attacks and dereliction, in some cases, nevertheless occurred. As indicated in some Armenian and third party reports, the great majority reached their destinations, sometimes in orderly fashion and at times exhausted, but alive.

The Ottoman courts tried 1,974 individuals in 1915-16, and gave 67 capital punishments, 524 imprisonment sentences and 63 harsh captivity verdicts (for solitary confinements). Some court judgements involved minor misdeeds, such as “purchase of an Armenian unmovable at a low-price” or for “an act contrary to good behaviour.” The fascist regimes in Europe, decades later, never displayed such open-mindedness and threw the book at their own men for mistreating a group proven or at least suspected for cooperation with the invading enemy.

However, court judgements in Istanbul, the Ottoman capital occupied at the end of the war, call for an entirely different evaluation. The sine qua non of a court of law is its independence. Although the Nazi racists and the Japanese militarists deserved punishments, even the Nurnberg and the Tokyo trials were the products of the victors’ justice. Let us imagine, for the sake of the argument, that a tribunal had existed in 1918 like the International Criminal Court of today, with judges and prosecutors elected by all the contracting states by secret ballot, representing the principal legal systems, equitable geographical representation and gender balance. Had both the Armenians and the Turks applied to that court with evidence and witnesses, but with no political influence from outside, the verdict would probably have been that groups of Armenians and Muslims, after centuries of peaceful coexistence, had killed each other, the sword dangling sometimes more over one side and at times over the other. On the basis of bloodshed on both sides, no independent court could have then decided that one group represented the victims only, and the other the victimizers. Let us remember at this point that the courts in occupied Istanbul did not try those Armenians for the extensive crimes that they had committed.

The years between 1914 and 1922 were also the period during which all the inhabitants of Asia Minor had to live through –or die- because of unhealthy war conditions including the spread of epidemics. The mere mention of unsanitary predicaments involving the dissemination of fatal bacteria and virus, or even of the far-flung hunger and unavoidable misery of so many consecutive years is almost instantly chastised as outright propaganda intended to downgrade the actual loss of Armenian lives. The truth is that Armenian (and Muslim) lives were reduced on account of many reasons, including voluntary or enforced outward migration, attacks on some people, fatalities brought about by almost a dozen wars in which the Armenians participated, general war circumstances, and rampant epidemics.

During the First World War, the British lost 120,000, the French 179,000, the Germans 166,000, and the Russians 395,000 soldiers, solely on account of diseases, according to their own official statistics. Casualties among the Armenians and Turks far exceed the figures that all interested parties are prepared to accept. Even Damat Hafiz Hakki Pasa (The Commander of the Turkish Eastern Front, who happened to be the son-in-law of the Ottoman Sultan), the German General Colmar von der Goltz (the Commander of the Ottoman Army in Iraq), and Sir Frederick Maude (the Commander of the British Expeditionary Force in Iraq) lost their lives on account of cholera or typhus. There is no doubt that the Armenian people also suffered, not only in 1915-16, but also during the last two decades of the Ottoman Empire. But it was part of a tragedy that engulfed all the citizens. As far as the general war conditions were concerned, the heaviest toll hit the Turkish soldiers and civilians.

Armenian-Turkish controversy proves once more that coming to terms with the past needs to be an exercise in good faith, free from domestic and international politics. Historical analysis should be all-inclusive, based on research and solid evidence. The blame cannot be put on the shoulders of a whole people, or on the future generations. One cannot reactivate the out-dated theologian concept of “original sin” and deduce from it the obsolete assertion that the new generations are born with guilt for all. Justice abhors double standards. In a book printed in Chicago in 1896, just four years before the world entered the 20th century, an American Protestant missionary (A.W. Williams) and the president of the Armenian Patriotic Alliance in New York (M.S. Gabriel) stated that the Turk was “a wild beast to be caged.” The authors begged “pardon of the hounds, hyenas...and all other wild beasts for using their names...” to describe...the ferocity of Kurd or Turk.” Nor can one explain past events via political organs that act like Orwellian ‘truth ministries’. All sources must be examined without preconceptions or prejudice. The gates of research on the Armenian issue is not closed yet. One cannot argue like a prosecuting attorney seeking to suppress information unfavourable to one’s position. One cannot rely on wartime propaganda and politically and racially motivated reports, reflecting the feelings or experience of one side only. The outstanding British historian Arnold J. Toynbee had described Wellington House, the war-time British propaganda center, where he had worked as a young scholar and brought out the controversial book on the Armenian issue, as a “mendacity bureau.”

The many facets of truth will appear only when an inquiring mind examines all the interpretations. That is why the British Government today repeatedly states that it cannot define the events of 1915 as genocide. That is why the spokesman of the Office of the UN Secretary General categorically declared that the “United Nations have never approved nor supported a report that describes the Armenian experience as ‘genocide’”.

Probing into the past cannot be restricted only to a nation, region, date, or to an ethnic/religious group. No nation can demand from another to examine solely the past of the latter. No nation may be singled out by others and made a scapegoat. No nation may be forced to serve the interests of another under the label of “coming to terms with its past.” If need be, the records of all countries, without any exception, and no veto privilege operating in favour of anyone of them, should be open for close scrutiny. If all agree to do so without exception, some of us will not be surprised when the Turks come out among those with the whitest record.

If my presentation does not conform to the mainstream interpretations, I may remind my colleagues that scholarship is like a building that needs continuous repair. One cannot have the frame of mind of the past European generations most gullible and thirsty for stories of blood-curdling atrocities, and be satisfied with them. It is the duty of the academic people to question the validity of the mainstream ideas. This is what I have basically attempted to do.

---

Excerpts from Dr. Bestami S. Bilgic’s talk at LSE

“Thanks to the Armenian terrorist activities in the 1970s and 80s against Turkish diplomatic representatives and their families around the world and to the efforts of Armenian Diaspora in Europe, the UK, and Americas which has relentlessly worked for recognition of an “Armenian genocide” by countries with most of which Turkey has had close political and economic relations, the issue of “genocide” has become one of the foreign policy items of the Turkish Republic…”

“… a “genocide” is not something for parliaments to decide. A genocide verdict can be given only by an international court particularly designated for “genocide” issue. In some countries, interpretation of the events of 1915-16 as “not genocide” has been labeled as “denial” of a “truth” and thus unlawful…”

“…Recognition of the events of 1915-16 as “genocide” by national parliaments has been one of the steps for the Armenian genocide claimers in their way to have Turkey convicted for committing the first genocide in the twentieth century, which is itself legally problematic given the fact that the Genocide Convention was signed after the alleged genocide was perpetrated…”

“…Despite close French-Turkish relations especially in terms of large French investment in Turkey and handsome contracts for French companies in Turkish defense industry, the French parliament with active lobbying of the Armenian community passed a resolution in 2001 that recognized the events of 1915-16 as “genocide”. In 2006 the French lower chamber passed another resolution that would make the “denial” of the so-called genocide a crime.

Actually, already in 1995 Prof. Bernard Lewis was convicted by a French court since he said that there was no Armenian genocide. Of course, the French parliament’s decision was taken with political concerns. And the French court’s decision can easily be interpreted as a violation of freedom of expression in a EU country, which has claimed to be the ‘champion’ of ‘liberté’ since the eighteenth century…”

“… Genocide is worst of all crimes… The odd thing in this entire affair is that historians and lawyers, who perhaps of all must be best equipped, to shed light on what happened, are silenced by the Armenian genocide claimers and some national parliaments who are endorsing their claims…”

“…Turkish side calls onto all countries including Armenia for the establishment of a historical commission that will discuss the events of 1915-16, while Armenian side and its third party supporters declare a historical event historically non-debatable…”

“… Turkish-Armenian relations did not start in 1915. It did not start in 1815, either.

Perhaps not even 1215 is the starting date. Therefore, one needs to put aside the “genocide vs. denial” dichotomy in order to make a scholarly evaluation of the Turkish-Armenian relations in general and the events of 1915-16 in particular…”

“…Research on the events of 1915-16 is still going on. It is not complete, yet, if it will ever be. But, it will come close to completion some time. Be that as it may, it is constantly being marred by political decisions and considerations…”

“..All parties interested in the events of 1915-16 need to hear what others have to say…”
“…If one considers national parliaments’ recognition of the so-called Armenian genocide and thus putting pressure on Turkish foreign policy makers to recognize the “genocide”, and then compensate claimers in cash and territory a success of the Armenian Diaspora, then this success seems to have inspired other anti-Turkish groups in the world. Pontian Greek and Assyrian groups as well have been putting forth their own genocide claims lately…”
“… “Genocide” issue has become one of the tools through which anti-Turkish groups in the world have been attempting to apply pressure upon Turkey… It is a low-cost policy, for the Diaspora communities are using the “fire range” of their host countries, which they deem, enjoy a better range at Turkey than Turkey has at them…”

---

CLOSING REMARKS BY DR ANDREW MANGO

Turks and Armenians are not doomed to eternal hostility. The two communities lived together in peace and amity for centuries – roughly from the conquest of Anatolia by the Seljuk Turks in the 11th century to the Congress of Berlin in 1878. The Armenians were so closely integrated into Ottoman society that the German military adviser von Moltke described them as “baptised Turks”. Most of them spoke Turkish as their mother tongue; they were active as merchants, craftsmen and intellectuals in the development of the Turkish theatre, in publishing, in promoting relations with Europe. There were Armenian civil servants, ambassadors and an Armenian minister in the Ottoman government right up to 1914. Then in the space of less than forty years – between 1878 and 1915 – the ideology of nationalism wrenched the two communities apart. Today, a small Armenian community continues to thrive in Istanbul, and thousands of illegal Armenian immigrants are finding employment in Turkey.

If the past is any guide, and as the admittedly small-scale current coexistence shows, amity between Turks and Armenians is still possible if not within the same state than across frontiers as good neighbours. A few months ago, a protocol was signed between the foreign ministers of Turkey and Armenia. It provided for the establishment of full diplomatic relations, the opening of frontiers, and the formation of a scientific commission of historians to establish an agreed version of past events. This agreement which was widely welcomed in the USA and the EU is today threatened. The Armenian Constitutional Court has ruled that first, there should be no linkage between the opening of frontiers and a solution of the dispute about Karabakh between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and that, second, before historians are asked to examine the record, Turkey should recognise that Armenians had been subjected to genocide. The two demands negate the protocol. Unless the Armenians at least begin to withdraw from the large slice of Azeri territory they occupy in and around Karabakh, Turkey cannot allow the exploitation of past tragedies in order to perpetuate a current one, for, let us not forget that close to a million Azeris have fled from the territory now occupied by the Armenians.

Secondly, a commission of historians must be allowed to study the past without any preconditions. The best way to break the deadlock is to press on with academic research even if there is no agreed framework for it. On the other hand, the surest way to perpetuate hatred is to conduct propaganda campaigns, seeking to turn politicians into historians by demanding that parliaments should pronounce on historical claims. In any case, while deadlock persists the search for truth should continue, and every effort should be made to avoid stirring up inter-communal hatred. Our purpose tonight is, therefore, not to score points but to show that truth and reconciliation go together, and that Turkish-Armenian reconciliation cannot be founded on lies. Surely, people of good will cannot disagree on this point.
END

---

About FTA UK
The Federation of Turkish Associations UK (FTA UK) was formed in 2002 consisting of sixteen independent and diverse Turkish associations to bring together the voice of their members on common issues. The FTA UK represents a large proportion of the Turkish community which is estimated at nearly 500,000 ethnic Turks who live mainly in London and its surrounding areas and includes Turkish Cypriots.

The Federation’s main aims and objectives are; to bring together the Turks living in Britain in solidarity and strengthen their relationship; to help the community to integrate better within the British system whilst maintaining their own culture and identity; to find solutions to their common problems and protect their common interests; to promote and enhance the British - Turkish friendship and to share the Turkish culture and history.

The Federation carries out its duties completely independently without being influenced by any political party, ethnic influence, religion or any form of discrimination and in the interest of the British-Turkish Community. It is a non profit - non governmental organisation and acts as an umbrella organisation and communication vehicle for the whole community.

---

Contact FTA UK :
· E-mail: turkishfederationuk@yahoo.co.uk
· Post: FTA UK, 41 Camberwell Church Street, London SE5 8TR
· Telephone: + 44 (0)7788 908 803

---

Prepared by Servet Hassan

---

.

Read More

3005) Diaspora And Armenia: Going Their Separate Ways?

2010/02/03

The following article, entitled “Rifts Emerging in Armenian Community, by Ruzan Hakobyan, a political scientist and freelance journalist based in Yerevan, appeared in the February 2, 2009, edition of Business Week.

And the counter comments marked in bold and Italic

A vast diaspora has long supported Armenia, but some locals fret that overseas brethren aren’t concerned enough about the country’s present-day problems.

Since gaining its independence in 1991 Armenia has enjoyed the support of a sizeable and influential diaspora worldwide. The brotherly backing of compatriots abroad has been important materially and psychologically as this small, landlocked country has faced war, earthquakes, trade embargoes, and political strife in the past two decades.. .

The diaspora’s assistance has translated into hundreds of schools and roads being built, houses restored, and infrastructure revived.

But while diasporan Armenians and those in the homeland have long shared a common vision for the country’s future, there have also long been cracks in the relationship. In recent years, those cracks have begun to widen.

Some indications are that the Armenians abroad and at home no longer see the same issues as priorities, including the recognition as genocide of the 1915 massacre of 1.5 million Armenians by Ottoman Turks. Many Armenians abroad are descendants of survivors of that massacre, and diaspora organizations have invested huge time and effort into achieving worldwide recognition of the genocide – to such an extent that their seeming indifference to the country’s present-day problems has angered some Armenians at home.

Any claims of massacre/genocide must be based on judicial decision of authorized Courts and must be based on factual evidence, and not simple fabrications by rumor! Claimants have not read even their own historians, let alone official documentation such as Memorandum given to Paris Conference in 1919, or Resolution 192, April 22, 1922 attesting that 1.414.000 Armenians were alive on 31.12.1921! What more, US official resolution confirms that it was Armenians who massacred Moslems with “many refinements of cruelty and that they did the largest damage to towns and villages”. If you have a stronger-better-more reliable document attesting the opposite (other than grand-ma stories) please submit it. History needs factual documentation!

Diasporan disconnect

Perj Zeytuntsian, a renowned Armenian writer and himself a former diasporan, has said that the diaspora is too occupied with international recognition of the genocide and called on to diaspora groups to press Armenia’s leaders to protect human rights, respect laws, and hold democratic elections.

“I believe that the diaspora must make demands concerning not only the lands that we lost but also the Armenia that, thank God, exists now,” he said in a 2005 interview with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. “We must constantly hear friendly statements like, ‘What the hell are you guys doing?’ That’s what is missing.”

This disconnect persists, fueled further by recent events in the homeland, even as Armenia’s problems have become more urgent. Although the country registered impressive economic growth before the worldwide recession, its prosperity has been hampered by a trade blockade by neighboring Turkey and Azerbaijan in place since the end of the Nagorno-Karabakh war in 1994. And parts of the country shaken by a devastating 1988 earthquake have yet to recover.

Why does the writer omit the reason of the blockade, the sudden aggression on Karabagh, occupation of Karabag plus some 20% of Azeri lands, Hocali massacres and expulsion of some 1 million Moslems kicked out from their hoses and living in shacks since then?

Thriving corruption and several rigged elections further exacerbate the political and economic situation in the country. In 2004, when the administration of then-President Robert Kocharian refused to organize a nationwide no-confidence referendum on the government’s performance, a wave of protests followed. In April 2004 opposition supporters were met with water cannons, stun grenades, and electroshock weapons.

Four years later, following the presidential elections, the opposition claimed large-scale fraud and hundreds of thousands of protesters vehemently opposed the election results. On 1 March 2008 peaceful opposition rallies culminated in armed clashes: 10 people were killed, a state of emergency was declared, and almost a hundred opposition leaders became political prisoners. The ensuing political crisis remains unresolved.

Sure, the Armenian Government (!) is run by a handful of ARF revolutionists, who have no respect of democracy, liberty and equality for their own citizens!

The diaspora’s reaction to those dramatic events was rather muted. In 2004 some diasporan organizations issued a few neutral statements urging the opposition and authorities to adhere to the rule of law.

Following the March 2008 events, several prominent Armenian-American organizations, including the Armenian Assembly of America and the Armenian National Committee of America, issued a joint statement condemning violence and calling on all parties to work peacefully within civic and legal structures. But they also stressed their readiness to cooperate with the newly elected president, Serge Sargsyan, disappointing those who were claiming electoral fraud and wrongdoing by the authorities.

Referring to this joint statement, former President Levon Ter-Petrosyan, leader of the opposition Armenian National Congress, declared at an opposition rally that major diasporan organizations shared partial responsibility for the failures of the administration because they “supported the position of the ‘newly elected’ authorities who shed the blood of…people who came to express their protest against the electoral fraud.”

Ter-Petrosyan has called the need for reform of traditional diaspora institutions “the topic of the day.”

Turkish reconciliation move causes pain

Analysts point to several reasons why the diaspora is reluctant to criticize the administration. One Armenian politician who wished to remain anonymous says some diaspora organizations, such as the Armenian National Committee of America, have links with the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, which was a part of the coalition government until recently and has made genocide recognition a priority.

Richard Giragosian, a prominent diasporan scholar and the director of the Armenian Center for National and International Studies, said in a recent interview with Hetq Online that some in the diaspora tend to see criticism of the Armenian government, no matter how authoritarian, as helping the enemy and weakening Armenia.

Hrach Bayadyan, a writer and lecturer on Armenian culture and identity, said that if Armenia were to get serious about moving closer to Europe and adhering to democratic values, the split between diasporan organizations that attach more value to recognition of genocide than to institutional reform could deepen.

And Vladimir Karapetyan, the Armenian National Congress’ foreign relations director, said, “A lack of information, heavy reliance on official propaganda, and an unwillingness to dwell on painful issues may account for the diaspora’s muted reaction.” He added, “The people of Armenia had a right to expect a less equivocal reaction to the March events. But the diaspora remained silent, thus encouraging violence on behalf of the administration.”

The reaction was far less quiet when Armenia and Turkey began making overtures to re-open diplomatic relations last year.

The government faced a wave of criticism from Armenians abroad with the advent of so-called football diplomacy, initiated by President Sargsyan following his controversial election. Sargsyan invited his Turkish counterpart to attend a World Cup qualification match in Yerevan. The outreach soon bore fruit in the shape of Armenian-Turkish protocols aimed at restoring diplomatic ties between the two countries.

The Armenian-Turkish agreement was widely hailed by the West as a historic moment for two countries with a long list of grievances against each other. But the critics insisted that it introduced inadmissible preconditions, including establishment of a historical commission to examine the genocide issue and recognition of current borders, which are contested by Armenia.

In protest at the agreement, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation party launched rallies and hunger strikes in Yerevan, and prominent diaspora organizations called on Armenian authorities to refrain from signing the protocols.

The agreement was doomed to fail from the very first day, being a two wheel bicycle, instead of 3-wheel tri-porter with inclusion of Azerbaijan or a stable 4-wheel with inclusion of diaspora. Yet it is against the interest of diaspora to reach to any settlement for deprived Armenia surviving on donations, because they will lose their “excuse for victimization and need of cash to save (?)” Borders?: These are the very old borders of 1850, also what the short lived Armenian Democratic State, May 28, 1918 to Dec.2,1920 had accepted, signed and ratified. Gentlemen, 70% of Armenian youth wishes to desert the country! Why is this “thirst of land for strength” when you can “buy anything by earning money by economics” participating in the serious projects.

Haykakan Zhamanak, a daily newspaper in Yerevan, described the protocols as a Dayton-style imposed move, referring to the agreement that ended the Bosnian war, signed in 1995 under great pressure from the United States.

The Armenian National Congress described the signing of the protocols as another sign of the political bankruptcy and diplomatic incompetence of the country’s leaders, and demanded Sargsyan’s resignation.

Voices in the diaspora argued that Armenia had been subjected to pressure from the West and Russia. According to Ara Khachatourian, an ethnic Armenian commentator who lives in Los Angeles, Armenia had submitted to a “full-frontal diplomatic and propaganda attack.” In a commentary in the Armenian-American daily newspaper Asbarez he wrote, “It is quite obvious to all observers…that Armenia has been forced to make concessions and take steps that satisfy the Turkish, the U.S. or Russian agendas.”

Lobbyist, philanthropist, and publisher Harut Sassounian, also writing from California, complained on the Asbarez website that “The Armenian government made no attempt during the lengthy negotiations with Turkey to consult with diaspora Armenians, despite the fact that the protocols addressed vital pan-Armenian issues.”

Armenian Government, knowing the reaction of ARF tried the short-cut, and Turkey thought it to be their success…but the short-cut got stuck in swamp! So simple!

Hambik Sarafian, leader of the U.S. branch of the opposition Social Democrat Hunchakian Party, insisted that the protocols would “alienate Armenia from the diaspora, creating a great wall of distrust.” And Khachatourian, declaring that Armenia needs a new approach, demanded that the Armenian administration “show its teeth or step aside.”

A call for “frankness”

The diaspora’s disenchantment is starting to make itself felt in material ways. In late November, the annual telethon for the California-based All Armenian Fund raised $15.9 million, half the amount raised in 2008. The fund’s organizers played down the depressed takings while trumpeting that more people had participated than ever before.

Hranush Hakobyan, the Armenian diaspora minister, said, the telethon’s success was evidence that “attempts to drive a wedge between Armenia and diaspora have failed. Armenia and the diaspora are united ever more.”

But this optimism wasn’t universal.

Analysts and commentators in Armenia said the results would be even more humble than the sum announced during the telethon, given that many would-be contributors don’t make good on their pledges. They noted, too, that takings from the Los Angeles area, once the most lucrative region for pledges, were down.

As an unsigned article in Hetq Online, a publication of the Investigative Journalists of Armenia, pointed out, “During the 12-hour broadcast, it was often stressed that one’s political views should not prevent anyone from contributing to the welfare of the people in Artsakh [Nagorno-Karabakh] and the border regions of Armenia.” But the publication also acknowledged that the global economic crisis had likely depressed contributions.

Armenians all over the world followed the telethon, commented Suzan Simonyan of the Hraparak daily in Yerevan. But in the wake of the March 2008 violence and the Armenian-Turkish protocols, “they watched halfheartedly, assuming that the amount collected and promised would be small.” Commenting on the fund’s claim that this year’s telethon was the most productive ever, the analyst called for “all-Armenian frankness.”

In an interview, Simonyan said the telethon’s organizers should have admitted that takings were down this year because of the political climate and disagreements between Armenia and the diaspora. “Such a statement could signal a reform both in the fund’s policies and in Armenia-diaspora relations. And today we are in dire need of both.”

Both Armenia and Armenian diaspora should rid themselves of illusions of easy get land (no right or strength to get) or indemnity lottery prize (since this was settled between USA and Turkish Republic in 1937 by agreement). Stop fighting your neighbors which you must live together and do not bully depending on the outside large powers, who pat your back resulting in the deaths of so many for diverse reasons of war conditions. Nevertheless the heroes who led their people into disasters (Antranik, Dro Kanajan, Armen Garo) left their nation in calamities and became heroes on the stages in Paris, London and Washington! Sorry folks but as long as you follow ARF’s impossible ambitions, it will not be them, but the decent-innocent Armenian who pays!

From a true friend….

Read More

2956) Genocide Cries In Vain… To Make … Cash Flow Like Rain

(An Open Verbatim Reply (Marked in Blue) To Reckless Distortions In Below Article)
By Sukru Server Aya - Istanbul

Remarks at House of Commons, Demanding Justice for Armenians, By Harut Sassounian May 15th, 2009

At the invitation of the British-Armenian All-Party Parliamentary Group (BAAPPG), I spoke on May 7 at a special conference on the Armenian Genocide held at the House of Commons, Committee Room 3, the British Parliament, London.

Dr. Israel Charny, Director of the Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide in Jerusalem, was also invited to speak at this conference. Regrettably, due to a last minute illness, Dr. Charny could not attend. His prepared remarks titled, “Denial of Genocide is not only a political tactic, it is an attack on decent people’s minds and emotions,” was read by Peter Barker, a former broadcaster of BBC Radio.

The conference was chaired by House of Lords member Baroness Cox, Chairman of BAAPPG. In attendance were: Members of the House of Lords, the Armenian Desk officer of the Foreign Office, representatives from the Embassies of Greece, Kuwait, Serbia, Slovenia, and Syria, non-governmental organizations, scholars, journalists, and other distinguished guests.

In my remarks titled, “Armenian Genocide and Quest for Justice,” I cited the acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide by the United Nations, European Parliament, legislatures of more than 20 countries, U.S. House of Representatives, Pres. Reagan, 42 out of 50 U.S. States, and the International Association of Genocide Scholars. I concluded that “after so many acknowledgments, the Armenian Genocide has become a universally recognized historical fact.”

Who do you think you are Sir and who has empowered you to make such childish conclusions and universal declarations? . .

I expressed regret that the United Kingdom remained one of the rare major countries

Apparently U.K is a more serious country where fait-accompli voting of small groups in session favoring genocide did not work!

that has yet to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide. I pointed out that”Britain’s siding with a denialist state is not so much due to lack of evidence or conviction, but, sadly, because of sheer political expediency, with the intent of appeasing Turkey.”I urged British officials to heed the cautionary words of Prime Minister Winston Churchill who said: “An appeaser is someone who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”

Does such gross language fit scholarly debate or form self-righteousness? Is your paper printed for Zoo visitors in Florida marshlands?

I suggested that Armenians no longer needed to convince the world that what took place during the years 1915-23 was “a genocide.”

Why Sir? Is this Ku Klux Klan or lynching mob or tribal methods of implementing justice?

Here are excerpts from my May 7 speech:
“A simple acknowledgment of and a mere apology, however, would not heal the wounds and undo the consequences of the Genocide. Armenians are still waiting for justice to be meted out, restoring their historic rights and returning their confiscated lands and properties.

Apologize for what? Various revolutions, acts of treason, joining enemies, fighting in front and behind the home country?

“In recent years, Armenian-American lawyers have successfully filed lawsuits in U.S. federal courts, securing millions of dollars from New York Life and French AXA insurance companies for unpaid claims to policy-holders who perished in the Genocide. Several more lawsuits are pending against other insurance companies and German banks to recover funds belonging to victims of the Armenian Genocide.

That was a smart “treasure hunt” which worked, why don’t you go to International courts?

“In 1915, a centrally planned and executed attempt was made to uproot from its ancestral homeland and decimate an entire nation, depriving the survivors of their cultural heritage as well as their homes, lands, houses of worship, and personal properties..

Such serious allegation must be supported by documentary evidence. Nice sentences as if a high school composition, distorting written evidence satisfies only personal egos. An order issued by 3rd Army Commander was instructing Ottoman soldiers “to refrain from using any abusive language to people in process of relocation and to protect all their belongings…or else!” Doesn’t this document totally erase allegations of uprooting, decimation, genocide etc?

“A gross injustice was perpetrated against the Armenian people, which entitles them, as in the case of the Jewish Holocaust, to just compensation for their enormous losses.

War conditions bring their own lack of justice? Did US forces act with justice in WW-II, or Vietnam or Iraq? Did British act with justice to Boers or Indians? Getting on the tail of Jewish Holocaust and hunting for restitutions is the real purpose of this whole mess. The Jews had a Holocaust as asserted by an International Tribunal. What more, Armenian battalions in service of Nazis (some 20.000) were instrumental in rounding up Jews and sending them to death camps. Read chapter 21 of my book with photos etc. Remember your hero Nazi General Kanajan!

“Restitution can take many forms. As an initial step, the Republic of Turkey could place under the jurisdiction of the Istanbul-based Armenian Patriarchate all of the Armenian churches and religious monuments which were expropriated and converted to mosques and warehouses or outright destroyed.

Bad news: All claims of U.S. citizens owing to WW-!, have been settled and paid in full per agreements between USA and Turkey in 1937 relieving of all claims until that time. In 1850, 70% of present Armenia was Muslim and they had their mosques baths, monuments, stores for sure. How many are in existence today? Only one Iranian mosque in Yerevan, with no Muslims left to worship. At present there are over 50 Armenian Churches in Turkey open for service for present Armenian community of some 60.000 Turkish citizens and some 70.000 illegal Armenian workers!

“In the absence of any voluntary restitution by the Republic of Turkey, Armenians could resort to litigation, seeking ‘restorative justice.’

Sure, go ahead apply to international legislation and get your repetitive lesson.

“In considering legal recourse, one should be mindful of the fact that the Armenian Genocide did neither start nor end in 1915.

“Large-scale genocidal acts were committed starting with Sultan Abdul Hamid’s massacre of 300,000 Armenians from 1894 to 1896; the subsequent killings of 30,000 Armenians in Adana by the Young Turk regime in 1909; culminating in the Genocide of 1.5 million Armenians in 1915 to 1923; and followed by forced Turkification and deportation of tens of thousands of Armenians by the Republic of Turkey..

For alleged killings in 1896, see chapter 29 of my book, pages 637-644. There are some 40 verbatim excerpts from US newspapers, take the trouble to read and learn! Regarding the great genocide lie, refer to page 303 of my book, see various figures of Armenian population. Most reliable count is of 1.3.1914, French-Armenian Land Distribution committee giving the figure 1.280.000. This figure is close to Ottoman Census and National Geographic figures. Joint US Congress-Senate Resolution No. 192, dated 22.4.1922 resolve that on 31.12.1921 a total of 1.414.000 are alive. I herewith request a written explanation as regards how you can kill 1.5 million out of 1.3 million and have a balance of 1.4 million? Some one is deliberately lying or wrong. WHO? There was never any Turkification except few, that changed religion to escape deportation!

“Most of the early leaders of the Turkish Republic were high-ranking Ottoman officials who had participated in perpetrating the Armenian Genocide. This unbroken succession in leadership assured the continuity of the Ottomans’ anti-Armenian policies.

After Mudros cease Fire and British occupation in early 1919, all archives were combed by Armenian experts and 144 Ottoman dignitaries were imprisoned in Malta, where they were kept for about two years pending “documentary legal evidence”. Nothing was found, and these were released even without an indictment.

The Republic of Turkey, as the continuation of the Ottoman Empire, could therefore be held responsible for the Genocide.

Republic of Turkey is not a continuation of the Ottoman dynasty, it is a revolutionary state and Mustafa Kemal was sentenced to death if he had not succeeded. The Soviet Union is neither the continuation of the Tsarist Russia, it is new revolutionary class.

“An important document, recently discovered in the U.S. archives, provides irrefutable evidence that the Republic of Turkey continued to uproot and exile the remnants of Armenians well into the 1930’s motivated by purely racist reasons. The document in question is a ‘Strictly Confidential’ cable, dated March 2nd, 1934, and sent by U.S. Ambassador Robert P. Skinner from Ankara to the U.S. Secretary of State, reporting the deportation of Armenians.

I am unaware of any such cable by Ambassador Skinner which would be totally paradoxical to his action on page 82-83 of my book (# 76) who was having trouble with the secular education laws of the new republic

“In the 1920’s and 30’s, thousands of Armenian survivors of the Genocide, were forced out of their homes in Cilicia and Western Armenia to locations elsewhere in Turkey or neighboring countries.

US Congress report informs us that 200 to 300.000 Armenians who had returned to Cilicia under British and French occupation, left their homeland with their own wish when the French Forces had to evacuate the region under new agreement with Nationalist Turks in 1921. They were asked to stay because they were the artisans and commercial class, but they decided to go and penalize Turks! Eventually, some of these immigrated to other countries whilst most stayed in Syria and Lebanon and became rich traders. (If they were to remain, possibly they would be still producing pastirma in some village in Turkey) . In 1930’s Turkey was the only country accepting Jews escaping from Nazi regime. Even Einstein had applied for acceptance but there was no job for his high qualities.

In the 1940’s, these racist policies were followed by the Varlik Vergisi, the imposition of an exorbitant wealth tax on Armenians, Greeks and Jews.

In 1940’s when Greeks were starving under German occupation because of famine, economically stricken Turkey with rationed food and shortage of everything, had sent four shiploads of grains and food supplies to Greece. On the fifth trip, the ship sank by storm. Some Greeks aged over 80 of Tsalonica may remember picking up grains that fell from sacks. Armenians, Greeks and Jews, citizens of Turkey were all saved from the horror of war. Economy was totally bankrupt a new tax of wealth had to be (unjustly) levied, these minorities paid more because they were richer than most Turks. However, the members of assessment committees could have done minor personal injustices. Expecting much justice during war ?
I know because I lived those days.

And, during the 1955 Istanbul pogroms, many Greeks as well as Armenians and Jews were killed and their properties destroyed. “This continuum of massacres, genocide and deportations highlights the existence of a long-term strategy implemented by successive Turkish regimes from the 1890’s to more recent times, in order to solve the Armenian Question with finality .

What a tirade of baloney distortions and lies! The 1955 riots was a political stance against Greeks and their desire to get the Cyprus island. The streets riots get out of hand, many stores were damaged but the State later paid the damages. Not a single soul died, the objective were Greek stores, but some Jews and Armenian stores also suffered because the hoodlums did not know the difference. Responsible and decent writers do not have the freedom of fabricating lies and make stories by imagination! Or else, your lies fall short and you are asked to prove by valid documentary evidence that you have spoken truth!

“Consequently, the Republic of Turkey is legally liable for its own crimes against Armenians, as well as those committed by its Ottoman predecessors.

Republic of Turkey or our ancestors the Ottoman Turks, have committed no crimes at all that have been ever judicially proven anywhere. These are shameless and fabricated rumors or slanders sounding as if true!

“Turkey inherited the assets of the Ottoman Empire;

Turkey inherited only debts from the Ottomans for all investments remaining within present borders of the Republic. The last installment of debt was paid in 1952 and everyone French-British-German were paid.

And therefore, it must have also inherited its liabilities.

Sorry, all has been paid! Where were you?

“Finally, since Armenians often refer to their three sequential demands from Turkey: ‘Recognition’ of the Genocide; ‘Reparations’ for their losses; and the ‘Return’ of their lands, Turks have come to believe that once the Genocide is recognized, Armenians will then pursue their next two demands.

Who has given the authority to diaspora Armenians to speak for ALL ARMENIANS, and bring trouble to the decent law abiding Armenians, I have known so many! The whole game is “treasure hunting” or “potorig” to collect money under several excuses, to distribute some, embezzle some. AGBU has embezzled the properties of Istanbul Patriarchate in Cyprus, the court case continues in Paris! There are so many examples of “love of money” of Armenians in my book, all from anti-Turkish foreigners, even American missionaries. There has been a great game of charlatanism behind patriotism, and “panchoonies” brought nothing but disaster to their countrymen and then left them flat and fled to safety! Why did Armen Garo (Pasternmadjian), Andranik and Dro Drastamat Kanajan (heroes of the revolution) left their countrymen flat in 1918 and saved their own lives going to England and USA?

“This is the main reason why Turks adamantly refuse to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide. They fear that acceptance of the Genocide would lead to other demands for restitution. They believe that by denying the first demand, they would be blocking the ones that are sure to follow.

Wake up, there is no possibility of any restitution, not even one cent!

“The fact is that, commemorative resolutions adopted by legislative bodies of various countries and statements made on the Armenian Genocide by world leaders have no force of law, and therefore, no legal consequence.

“Armenians, Turks and others involved in this historical, and yet contemporary issue, must realize that recognition of the Armenian Genocide or the lack thereof, will neither enable nor deter its consideration by international legal institutions.

“Once Turkish officials realize that recognition by itself cannot and would not lead to other demands, they may no longer persist in their obsessive denial of these tragic events.

Stomach sickening bragging literature !

“Without waiting for any further recognition, Armenians can pursue their historic rights through proper legal channels, such as the International Court of Justice (where only states have such jurisdiction), the European Court of Human Rights and U.S. Federal Courts. .

Sure, try again The European Court of Justice had ruled against such a demand by G. and S. Krikorian in France on Dec.17, 2003. U.S. Federal Courts are not international; you have to go to International Courts of Justice. Do it!

“Justice, based on international law, must take its course.”

Following an extensive question and answer period, Armenia’s Ambassador to Great Britain, Vahe Gabrieliyan, delivered the closing remarks. Based on the speeches of the two speakers, the BAAPPG issued a statement calling on the British Government to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide.


Additional Reading Recommended:

E-Book-Genocide-Of-Truth
G-Nonsense-Talks-Vs-F-Nansen
Unfounded-Illusionary-Allegations
Free-Consolation-Versus-Frail. .

Friendly Advice to Adventurers:

Stop these fabrication of lies and collections of new version of “potorig” which you need to distribute and pay with a small portion going to Armenia, where people are not fed with empty words of bragging. Come to sense, don’t give sermons with full stomach to those who need food in Armenia! Turks and Armenians were always good friends with identical sentiments (until the outside major power and internal reckless revolutionaries brought the disasters for which they are holding Turks responsible instead of their own selves)! Armenian people are wise industrious people but few smart pipe blowers, always spread hopes ending with “give on-line money”. Today, it is not the land, but it is the know-how and trade that brings prosperity! Imagine what Germany and Japan would have been economically, if their leaders did not go to war for land expansion! You are on the wrong no-end street, and these lies and fabrications will not bring land, nor money to you. It will only waste the time and life of the suffering average people in Armenia.

My sincere best wishes to decent, realist fellow men who happen to be of Armenian ethnicity, but same blood Rh!

Sukru S. Aya

Read More