{"id":11445,"date":"2009-04-21T22:22:20","date_gmt":"2009-04-21T19:22:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.turkishforum.com.tr\/en\/content\/?p=11445"},"modified":"2023-04-05T10:50:10","modified_gmt":"2023-04-05T07:50:10","slug":"what-drove-the-armenians-and-the-turks-apart","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.turkishnews.com\/en\/content\/2009\/04\/21\/what-drove-the-armenians-and-the-turks-apart\/","title":{"rendered":"What drove the Armenians and the Turks apart?"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/strong> By Justin McCarthy<\/strong><\/strong>
\n<\/strong>
\n<\/strong> The History<\/strong>
\nConflict between the Turks and the Armenians was not inevitable. The two\u00a0peoples should have been friends. When World War I began, the Armenians and\u00a0Turks had been living together for 800 years. The Armenians of Anatolia and\u00a0Europe had been Ottoman subjects for nearly 400 years. There were problems\u00a0during those centuries-problems caused especially by those who attacked and\u00a0ultimately destroyed the Ottoman Empire. Everyone in the Empire suffered,\u00a0but it was the Turks and other Muslims who suffered most. Judged by all\u00a0economic and social standards, the Armenians did well under Ottoman rule. By\u00a0the late nineteenth century, in every Ottoman province the Armenians were\u00a0better educated and richer than the Muslims. Armenians worked hard, it is\u00a0true, but their comparative riches were largely due to European and American\u00a0influence and Ottoman tolerance. European merchants made Ottoman Christians\u00a0their agents. European merchants gave them their business. European consuls\u00a0intervened in their\u00a0 behalf. The Armenians benefited from the education given to them, and not to the Turks, by American missionaries.<\/p>\n

While the lives of the Armenians as a group were improving, Muslims were\u00a0living through some of the worst suffering experienced in modern history: In\u00a0the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Bosnians were massacred by\u00a0Serbs, Russians killed and exiled the Circassians, Abkhazians, and Laz, and\u00a0Turks were killed and expelled from their homelands by Russians, Bulgarians,\u00a0Greeks, and Serbs. Yet, in the midst of all this Muslim suffering, the\u00a0political situation of the Ottoman Armenians constantly improved. First,\u00a0equal rights for Christians and Jews were guaranteed in law. Equal rights\u00a0increasingly became a reality, as well. Christians took high places in the\u00a0government. They became ambassadors, treasury officials, even foreign ministers. In many ways, in fact, the rights of Christians became greater\u00a0than those of the Muslims, because powerful European states intervened in\u00a0their behalf. The Europeans demanded and received special treatment for\u00a0Christians. Muslims had no such\u00a0 advantages.<\/p>\n

That was the environment in which Armenians revolted against the Ottoman\u00a0Empire–hundreds of years of peace, economic superiority, constantly\u00a0improving political conditions. This would not seem to be a cause for\u00a0revolution. Yet the nineteenth century saw the beginning of an Armenian\u00a0revolution that was to culminate in disaster for both. What drove the\u00a0Armenians and the Turks apart?<\/p>\n


\n<\/strong> The Russians<\/strong><\/p>\n

First and foremost, there were the Russians. Regions where Christians and\u00a0Muslims had been living together in relative peace were torn asunder when the Russians invaded the Caucasian Muslim lands. Most Armenians were\u00a0probably neutral, but a significant number took the side of the Russians. Armenians served as spies and even provided armed units of soldiers for the\u00a0Russians. There were significant benefits for the Armenians: The Russians took Erivan Province, today’s Armenian Republic, in 1828. They expelled\u00a0Turks and gave the Turkish land, tax-free, to Armenians. The Russians knew that if the Turks remained they would always be the enemies of their\u00a0conquerors, so they replaced them with a friendly population-the Armenians.<\/p>\n

The forced exile of the Muslims continued until the first days of World War\u00a0I: 300,000 Crimean Tatars, 1.2 million Circassians and Abkhazians, 40,000 Laz, 70,000 Turks. The Russians invaded Anatolia in the war of 1877-78, and\u00a0once again many Armenians joined the Russian side. They served as scouts and spies. Armenians became the “police” in occupied territories, persecuting\u00a0the Turkish population. The peace treaty of 1878 gave much of Northeastern Anatolia back to the Ottomans. The Armenians who had helped the Russians\u00a0feared revenge and fled, although the Turks did not, in fact, take any\u00a0revenge.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Both the Muslims and the Armenians remembered the events of the Russian\u00a0invasions. Armenians could see that they would be more likely to prosper if\u00a0the Russians won. Free land, even if stolen from Muslims, was a powerful\u00a0incentive for Armenian farmers. Rebellious Ottoman Armenians had found a\u00a0powerful protector in Russia. Rebels also had a base in Russia from which\u00a0they could organize rebellion and smuggle men and guns into the Ottoman\u00a0Empire.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Muslims knew that if the Russians were guardian angels for the\u00a0Armenians, they were devils for the Muslims. They could see that when the\u00a0Russians triumphed Muslims lost their lands and their lives. They knew what\u00a0would happen if the Russians came again. And they could see that Armenians\u00a0had been on the side of the Russians. Thus did 800 years of peaceful\u00a0coexistence disintegrate.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Armenian Revolutionaries<\/strong><\/p>\n

It was not until Russian Armenians brought their nationalist ideology to\u00a0Eastern Anatolia that Armenian rebellion became a real threat to the Ottoman\u00a0State.<\/p>\n

Although there were others, two parties of nationalists were to lead the\u00a0Armenian rebellion. The first, the Hunchakian Revolutionary Party<\/strong>, called the Hunchaks, was founded in Geneva, Switzerland in 1887 by Armenians from\u00a0Russia<\/strong>. The second, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation,<\/strong> called the Dashnaks,<\/strong> was founded in the Russian Empire<\/strong>, in Tiflis,<\/strong> in 1890.<\/strong> Both were\u00a0Marxist. Their methods were violent. The Hunchak and Dashnak Party<\/strong> Manifestos called for armed revolution in the Ottoman Empire.<\/strong> Terrorism,\u00a0including the murder of both Ottoman officials and Armenians who opposed them, was part of the party platforms. Although they were Marxists, both\u00a0groups made nationalism the most important part of their philosophy of revolution. In this they were much like the nationalist revolutionaries of\u00a0Bulgaria, Macedonia, or Greece.<\/p>\n

Unlike the Greek or Bulgarian revolutionaries, the Armenians had a\u00a0demographic problem. In Greece, the majority of the population was Greek. In Bulgaria, the majority was Bulgarian. In the lands claimed by the Armenians,\u00a0however, Armenians were a fairly small minority.<\/strong> The region that was called “Ottoman Armenia,” the “Six Vil\u00e2yets” of Sivas, Mam\u00fcret\u00fclaziz, Diyarbak\u0131r,\u00a0Bitlis, Van, and Erzurum<\/strong>, was only 17% Armenian<\/strong>. It was 78% Muslim. <\/strong>This was<\/strong> to have important consequences for the Armenian revolution, because the only\u00a0way to create the “Armenia” the revolutionaries wanted was to expel the\u00a0Muslims who lived there.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Anyone who doubts the intentions of the revolutionaries need only look at\u00a0their record-actions such as the murder of one governor of Van Province and\u00a0attempted murder of another, murders of police chiefs and other officials,\u00a0the attempted assassination of sultan Abd\u00fclhamid II. These were radical\u00a0nationalists who were at war with the Ottoman State.<\/p>\n

Beginning in earnest in the 1890s, the Russian Armenian revolutionaries\u00a0began to infiltrate the Ottoman Empire. They smuggled rifles, cartridges,\u00a0dynamite, and fighters across ill-defended borders into Van, Erzurum, and\u00a0Bitlis provinces along the routes shown on the map. The Ottomans were poorly\u00a0equipped to fight them.<\/strong> The problem was financial. The Ottomans still\u00a0suffered from their terrible losses in the 1877-78 War with Russia. They\u00a0suffered from the Capitulations, from debts, and from predatory European\u00a0bankers.<\/strong> It must also be admitted that the Ottomans were poor economists.\u00a0The result was a lack of money to support the new police and military units\u00a0that were needed to fight the revolutionaries and restrain Kurdish tribes.\u00a0The number of soldiers and gendarmes in the East was never sufficient, and\u00a0they were often not paid for months at a time. It was impossible to defeat\u00a0the rebels with so few resources.<\/strong><\/p>\n

By far the most successful of the revolutionaries were the Dashnaks.\u00a0Dashnaks from Russia were the leaders of rebellion. They were the organizers\u00a0and the “enforcers” who turned the Armenians of Anatolia into rebel\u00a0soldiers. <\/strong>This was not an easy task, because at first most of the Ottoman\u00a0Armenians had no wish to rebel. They preferred peace and security and\u00a0disapproved of the atheistic, socialist revolutionaries. A feeling of\u00a0separatism and even superiority among the Armenians helped the\u00a0revolutionaries, but the main weapon that turned the Armenians of the East\u00a0into rebels was terrorism. The prime cause that united the Armenians against\u00a0their government was fear.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Before the Armenians could be turned into rebels their traditional loyalty\u00a0to their Church and their Community leaders had to be destroyed. The rebels\u00a0realized that Armenians felt the most love and respect for their Church, not\u00a0for the revolution. The Dashnak Party therefore resolved to take effective\u00a0control of the Church. Most clergymen, however, did not support the atheistic Dashnaks. The Church could only be taken over through violence.<\/p>\n

What happened to Armenian clergymen who opposed the Dashnaks? Priests were\u00a0killed in villages and cities. Their crime? They were loyal Ottoman\u00a0subjects. The Armenian bishop of Van, Boghos, was murdered by the\u00a0revolutionaries in his cathedral on Christmas Eve. His crime? He was a loyal\u00a0Ottoman subject.<\/strong> The Dashnaks attempted to kill the Armenian Patriarch in\u00a0Istanbul, Malachia Ormanian. His crime?<\/strong> He opposed the revolutionaries.\u00a0Arsen, the priest in charge of the important Akhtamar Church in Van, the\u00a0religious center of the Armenians in the Ottoman East, was murdered by\u00a0Ishkhan, one of the leaders of Van’s Dashnaks. His crime? He opposed the\u00a0Dashnaks. But there was an additional reason to kill him: The Dashnaks\u00a0wanted to take over the Armenian education system that was based in\u00a0Akhtamar. After Father Arsen was killed, the Dashnak Aram Manukian, a man\u00a0without known religious belief, became head of the Armenian schools. He\u00a0closed down religious education and began revolutionary\u00a0 education.\u00a0So-called “religious teachers” spread throughout Van Province, teaching\u00a0revolution, not religion.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The loyalty of the rebels was to the revolution. Not even their church was\u00a0safe from their attacks.<\/p>\n

The other group that most threatened the power of the rebels was the\u00a0Armenian merchant class. As a group they favored the government. They wanted\u00a0peace and order, so that they could do business. They were the traditional\u00a0secular leaders of the Armenian Community; the rebels wanted to lead the\u00a0Community themselves, so the merchants had to be silenced. Those who most\u00a0publicly supported their government, such as Bedros Kapamac\u0131yan, the Mayor\u00a0of Van, and Armarak, the kaymakam of Geva\u015f, were assassinated, as were numerous Armenian policemen, at least one Armenian Chief of Police, and\u00a0Armenian advisors to the Government. Only a very brave Armenian would take\u00a0the side of the Government.<\/p>\n

The Dashnaks looked on the merchants as a source of money. The merchants\u00a0would never donate to the revolution willingly. They had to be forced to do\u00a0so. The first reported case of extortion from merchants came in Erzurum in\u00a01895, soon after the Dashnak Party became active in the Ottoman domains. The\u00a0campaign began in earnest in 1901. In that year the extortion of funds\u00a0through threats and assassination became the official policy of the Dashnak\u00a0Party. The campaign was carried out in Russia and the Balkans, as well as in the Ottoman Empire. One prominent Armenian merchant, Isahag Zhamharian,\u00a0refused to pay and reported the Dashnaks to the police. He was assassinated\u00a0in the courtyard of an Armenian church. Others who did not pay were also\u00a0killed. The rest of the merchants then paid.<\/p>\n

From 1902 to 1904<\/strong> the main extortion campaign brought in the equivalent, in \u00a0today’s money, of more than eight million dollars.<\/strong> And this was only the\u00a0amount collected by the central Dashnak committee in a short period, almost\u00a0all from outside the Ottoman Empire.<\/strong> It does not include the amounts\u00a0extorted from 1895 to 1914<\/strong> in many areas of the Ottoman Empire. Soon the\u00a0merchants were paying their taxes to the revolutionaries, not to the\u00a0government. When the government in Van demanded that the merchants pay their\u00a0taxes, the merchants pleaded that they had indeed paid taxes, but to the\u00a0revolutionaries. They said they could only pay the government if the\u00a0government protected them from the rebels. The same condition prevailed all\u00a0over Eastern Anatolia, in \u0130zmir, in Cilicia, and elsewhere.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Armenian common people did not escape the extortions of the rebels. They\u00a0were forced to feed and house the revolutionaries. British Consul Elliot\u00a0reported, “They [the Dashnaks] quarter themselves on Christian villages,\u00a0live on the best to be had, exact contributions to their funds, and make the\u00a0younger women and girls submit to their will. Those who incur their\u00a0displeasure are murdered in cold blood.”[1]<\/strong><\/p>\n

The greatest cost to villagers was the forced purchase of guns. The\u00a0villagers were turned into rebel “soldiers,” whether they wished to be or\u00a0not. If they were to fight the Turks, they needed weapons. The\u00a0revolutionaries smuggled weapons from Russia and forced the Armenian\u00a0villagers to buy. The methods used to force the villagers to buy were very\u00a0effective, as British consul Seele reported:
\nAn agent arrived in a certain village and informed a villager that he must\u00a0buy a Mauser pistol. The villager replied that he had no money, whereupon\u00a0the agent retorted, “You \t\t\tmust sell your oxen.” The wretched villager then\u00a0proceeded to explain that the sowing season would soon arrive and asked how\u00a0a Mauser pistol would enable him to plough his \t\tfields. For reply the agent\u00a0proceeded to destroy the poor man’s oxen with his pistol and then\u00a0departed.”[2]<\/p>\n

The rebels had more than military organization in mind when they forced the\u00a0villagers to buy weapons. The villagers were charged double the normal cost\u00a0of the weapons. A rifle worth \u00a35 was sold for \u00a310. Both the rebel\u00a0organization and the rebels themselves did very well from the sales.<\/p>\n

It was the peasants who suffered most. The most basic policy of the\u00a0revolutionaries was a callous exploitation of the lives of Armenians:\u00a0Kurdish tribes and their villages were attacked by the rebels, knowing that\u00a0the tribes would take their revenge on innocent Armenian villagers. The\u00a0revolutionaries escaped and left their fellow Armenians to die.<\/p>\n

Even Europeans, friends of the Armenians, could see that the revolutionaries\u00a0were the cause of the curse that had descended on Eastern Anatolia. Consul\u00a0Seele wrote in 1911<\/strong>:<\/p>\n

From what I have seen in the parts of the country I have visited I have\u00a0become more convinced than ever of the baneful influence of the Taschnak\u00a0Committee on the welfare of the Armenians and generally of this part of\u00a0Turkey. It is impossible to overlook the fact in that in all places where\u00a0there are no Armenian political organisations or where such \t\t\t\u00a0\u00a0organisations\u00a0are imperfectly developed, the Armenians live in comparative harmony with\u00a0the Turks and Kurds.[3]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Englishman rightly saw that the cause of the unrest in the East was the\u00a0Armenian revolutionaries. If there were no Dashnaks, the Turks and Armenians\u00a0would have lived together in peace. The Ottoman Government knew this was\u00a0true. Why did the Government tolerate so much from the rebels? Why did the\u00a0Government not stamp them out?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Ottoman failure to effectively oppose the rebels is indeed hard to\u00a0understand. Imagine a country in which a number of radical revolutionaries,\u00a0most of them from a foreign country, organize a rebellion. They infiltrate\u00a0fighters and guns from this foreign country to lead their attack on the\u00a0government and the people. The radicals openly state they wish to create a state in which the majority of the population will be excluded from rule.\u00a0They murder and terrorize their own people to force them to join their\u00a0cause. They murder government officials. They deliberately murder members of\u00a0the majority in the hope that reprisals will lead other nations to invade.\u00a0They store thousands of weapons in preparation for revolt. They revolt, are defeated, then revolt again and again. The country that gains most from the\u00a0rebels’ actions is the country they come from-the country in which they\u00a0organize, the country in which they have their home base.<\/p>\n

What government would tolerate this? Has there ever been a country that\u00a0would not jail, and probably hang such rebels? Has there ever been a country\u00a0that would allow them to continue to operate openly? Yes. That country was\u00a0the Ottoman Empire.<\/strong> In the Ottoman Empire the Armenian rebels operated\u00a0openly, stored thousands of weapons, murdered Muslims and Armenians, killed\u00a0governors and other officials, and rebelled again and again. The only one to\u00a0truly benefit from their actions was Russia-the country in which they organized, the country their leaders came from.<\/p>\n

How could this happen? The Ottomans were not cowards. The Ottomans were not\u00a0fools. They knew what the rebels were doing. The Ottomans tolerated the\u00a0Armenian revolutionaries because the Ottomans had no choice.<\/p>\n

It must be remembered that the very existence of the Ottoman Empire was at\u00a0stake. Serbia, Bosnia, Romania, Greece, and Bulgaria had already been lost\u00a0because of European intervention. <\/strong>The Europeans had almost divided the\u00a0Empire in 1878 and had planned to do so in the 1890s. Only fear that Russia\u00a0would become too powerful had stopped them. Public opinion in Britain and\u00a0France could easily change that. Indeed, that was exactly what the Armenian\u00a0revolutionaries wanted. They wanted the Ottomans to jail and execute\u00a0Armenian rebels. European newspapers would report that as government\u00a0persecution of innocent Armenians. They wanted the government to prosecute\u00a0Armenian revolutionary parties. The European newspapers would report that as\u00a0denying political freedom to the Armenians. They wanted Muslims to react to\u00a0Armenian provocations and attacks by killing Armenians. The European\u00a0newspapers would report only the dead Armenians, not the dead Muslims.\u00a0Public opinion would force the British and\u00a0 French to cooperate with the\u00a0Russians and dismember the Empire.
\n
\n<\/strong> Many politicians in Europe, men such as Gladstone, were as prejudiced\u00a0against the Turks as were the press and the public. They were simply waiting\u00a0for the right opportunity to destroy the Ottoman Empire.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The result was that it was nearly impossible for the Ottomans to properly\u00a0punish the rebels. The Europeans demanded that the Ottomans accept actions\u00a0from the revolutionaries that the Europeans themselves would never tolerate\u00a0in their own possessions. When the Dashnaks occupied the Ottoman Bank,\u00a0Europeans arranged their release. European ambassadors forced the Ottomans\u00a0to grant amnesty to rebels in Zeytun. They arranged pardons for those who\u00a0attempted to kill sultan Abd\u00fclhamid II. The Russian consuls would not let\u00a0Ottoman courts try Dashnak rebels, because they were Russian subjects. Many\u00a0rebels who were successfully tried and convicted were released, because the\u00a0Europeans demanded and received pardons for them, in essence threatening the\u00a0sultan if he did not release rebels and murderers. One Russian consul in Van\u00a0even publicly trained Armenian rebels, acting personally as their weapons\u00a0instructor.<\/strong><\/p>\n

All the Ottomans could do was try to keep things as quiet as possible. That\u00a0meant not punishing the rebels as they should have been punished. One can\u00a0only pity the Ottomans. They knew that if they governed properly the result\u00a0would be the death of their state.<\/strong><\/p>\n

World War I<\/strong> There were two factors that caused the Ottoman loss in the East in World War<\/strong> I:<\/strong>
\nThe first was Enver Pa\u015fa’s disastrous attack at Sar\u0131kam\u0131\u015f. Enver’s attack on\u00a0Russia in December of 1914 was in every way a disaster. Of the 95,000\u00a0Turkish troops who attacked Russia, 75,000 died. The second factor, the one\u00a0that concerns us here, was Armenian Revolt.
\nAs World War I threatened and the Ottoman Army mobilized, Armenians who\u00a0should have served their country instead took the side of the Russians. The\u00a0Ottoman Army reported: “From Armenians with conscription obligations those\u00a0in towns and villages East of the Hopa-Erzurum-H\u0131n\u0131s-Van line did not comply\u00a0with the call to enlist but have proceeded East to the border to join the\u00a0organization in Russia.” The effect of this is obvious: If the young\u00a0Armenian males of the “zone of desertion” had served in the Army, they would\u00a0have provided more than 50,000 troops. If they had served, there might never\u00a0have been a Sar\u0131kam\u0131\u015f defeat.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Armenians from Hopa to Erzurum to H\u0131n\u0131s to Van were not the only\u00a0Armenians who did not serve. The 10s of thousands of Armenians of Sivas who\u00a0formed chette bands did not serve. The rebels in Zeytun and elsewhere in\u00a0Cilicia did not serve. The Armenians who fled to the Greek islands or to\u00a0Egypt or Cyprus did not serve. More precisely, many of these Armenian young\u00a0men did serve, but they served in the armies of the Ottomans’ enemies. They\u00a0did not protect their homeland, they attacked it.<\/p>\n

In Eastern Anatolia, Armenians formed bands to fight a guerilla war against\u00a0their government. Others fled only to return with the Russian Army, serving\u00a0as scouts and advance units for the Russian invaders. It was those who\u00a0stayed behind who were the greatest danger to the Ottoman war effort and the\u00a0greatest danger to the lives of the Muslims of Eastern Anatolia.<\/p>\n

It has often been alleged by Armenian nationalists that the Ottoman order to\u00a0deport Armenians was not caused by Armenian rebellion. As evidence, they\u00a0note the fact that the law of deportation was published in May of 1915, at\u00a0approximately the same time that the Armenians seized the City of Van.\u00a0According to this logic, the Ottomans must have planned the deportation some\u00a0time before that date, so the rebellion could not have been the cause of the\u00a0deportations. It is true that the Ottomans began to consider the possibility\u00a0of deportation a few months before May, 1915. <\/strong>What is not true is that May,\u00a01915 was the start of the Armenian rebellion. It had started long before.<\/strong><\/p>\n

European observers knew long before 1914 that Armenians would join the\u00a0Russian side in event of war. As early as 1908, British consul Dickson had\u00a0reported:<\/strong>
\nThe Armenian revolutionaries in Van and Salmas [in Iran] have been informed\u00a0by their Committee in Tiflis that in the event of war they will side with\u00a0the Russians against \t\t\tTurkey. <\/strong> Unaided by the Russians, they could mobilize\u00a0about 3,500 armed sharpshooters to harass the Turks about the frontier, and\u00a0their lines of communication.[4]<\/p>\n

British diplomatic sources reported that in preparation for war, in 1913,\u00a0the Armenian revolutionary groups met and agreed to coordinate their efforts\u00a0against the Ottomans.<\/strong> The British reported that this alliance was the result\u00a0of meetings with “the Russian authorities.” The Dashnak leader (and member\u00a0of the Ottoman Parliament) Vramian had gone to Tiflis to confer with the\u00a0Russian authorities. The British also reported that “[The Armenians] have\u00a0thrown off any pretence of loyalty they may once have shown, and openly\u00a0welcome the prospect of a Russian occupation of the Armenian Vilayets.” [5]<\/p>\n

Even Dashnak leaders admitted the Dashnaks were Russian allies. The Dashnak\u00a0Hovhannes Katchaznouni, prime minister of the Armenian Republic, stated that\u00a0the party plan at the beginning of the war was to ally with the Russians.<\/p>\n

Since 1910 the revolutionaries had distributed a pamphlet throughout Eastern\u00a0Anatolia. It demonstrated how Armenian villages were to be organized into\u00a0regional commands, how Muslim villages were to be attacked, and specifics of\u00a0guerilla warfare.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Before the war began, Ottoman Army Intelligence reported on Dashnak plans:<\/strong> They would declare their loyalty to the Ottoman State, but increase their\u00a0arming of their supporters. If war was declared, Armenian soldiers would\u00a0desert to the Russian Army with \t\ttheir arms. The Armenians would do nothing\u00a0if the Ottomans began to defeat the Russians. If the Ottomans began to\u00a0retreat, the Armenians would form armed guerilla bands and \t\tattack according\u00a0to plan. The Ottoman intelligence reports were correct, for that is exactly\u00a0what happened.<\/p>\n

The Russians gave .24 million rubles to the Dashnaks to arm the Ottoman\u00a0Armenians.<\/strong> They began distributing weapons to Armenians in the Caucasus and\u00a0Iran in September of 1914.<\/strong> In that month, seven months before the\u00a0Deportations were ordered, Armenian attacks on Ottoman soldiers and\u00a0officials began.<\/strong> Deserters from the Ottoman Army at first formed into what\u00a0officials called “bandit gangs.” They attacked conscription officers, tax\u00a0collectors, gendarmerie outposts, and Muslims on the roads. By December a\u00a0general revolt had erupted in Van Province. Roads and telegraph lines were\u00a0cut, gendarmerie outposts attacked, and Muslim villages burned, their\u00a0inhabitants killed. The revolt soon grew: in December, near the Kotur Pass,\u00a0which the Ottomans had to hold to defend against Russian invasion from Iran,\u00a0a large Armenian battle group defeated units of the Ottoman army, killing 400 Ottoman soldiers and forcing the army to retreat to Saray. The attacks\u00a0were not only in Van: The governor of Erzurum,\u00a0 Tahsin, cabled that he could\u00a0not hold off the Armenian attacks that were breaking out through the\u00a0province; soldiers would have to be sent from the front.<\/p>\n

By February, reports of attacks began to come in from all over the East-a\u00a0two-hour battle near Mu\u015f, an eight-hour battle in Abaak, 1,000 Armenians\u00a0attacking near Timar, Armenian chettes raiding in Sivas, Erzurum, Adana,\u00a0Diyarbak\u0131r, Bitlis, and Van provinces. Telegraph lines to the front and from\u00a0Ottoman cities to the West were cut, repaired, and cut again many times.\u00a0Supply caravans to the army were attacked, as were columns of wounded\u00a0soldiers. Units of gendarmerie and soldiers sent to reconnect telegraph\u00a0lines or protect supply columns themselves came under attack. As an example\u00a0of the enormity of the problem, in the middle of April an entire division of\u00a0gendarmerie troops was ordered from Hakk\u00e2ri to \u00c7atak to battle a major\u00a0uprising there, but the division could not fight through the Armenian\u00a0defenses.<\/p>\n

Once careful preparations had been made, Armenians revolted in the City of\u00a0Van. On April 20, well-armed Armenian units, many wearing military uniforms,\u00a0took the city and drove Ottoman forces into the citadel.<\/strong> The rebels burned\u00a0down most of the city, some buildings also being destroyed by the two canons\u00a0the Ottomans had in the citadel. Troops were sent from the Erzurum and\u00a0Iranian Fronts, but they were unable to relieve the city. The Russians and\u00a0Armenians were advancing from the north and the southwest. On May 17 the\u00a0Ottomans evacuated the citadel. <\/strong>Soldiers and civilians fought their way\u00a0southwest around Lake Van. Some took to boats on the Lake, but nearly half\u00a0of these were killed by rebels firing from the shore or when their boats ran\u00a0aground. Some of the Muslims of Van survived at least for a while, put in\u00a0the care of American missionaries. Most who did not escape were killed.\u00a0Villagers were either killed in their homes or collected from surrounding\u00a0areas and sent into the great\u00a0 massacre at Zeve.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The ensuing suffering of the Muslims and Armenians is well known. It was a\u00a0history of bloody warfare between peoples in which all died in great\u00a0numbers. When the Ottomans retook much of the East, the Armenian population\u00a0fled to Russia. <\/strong>There they starved and died of disease. When the Russians\u00a0retook Van and Bitlis Provinces, they did not allow the Armenians to return,\u00a0leaving them to starve in the North. <\/strong>The Russians wanted the land for\u00a0themselves. It is also well known that Armenians who remained, those in\u00a0Erzurum Province, massacred Muslims in great numbers at the end of the war.<\/strong><\/p>\n

My purpose here is not to retell that history. I wish to demonstrate that\u00a0the Ottomans were right in considering the Armenians to be their enemies, if\u00a0further proof is needed. The map shows proof that the Armenian rebels in\u00a0fact were agents of Russia.<\/p>\n

The Armenians of the Ottoman East rebelled in exactly those areas that were\u00a0most important to the Russians. The benefit of the rebellion in Van City,\u00a0the center of Ottoman Administration in the Southeast is obvious. The other\u00a0sites of rebellion were in reality more important: Rebellion in Erzurum\u00a0Province cut the Ottoman Army off from supplies and communications. The rebellion was directly in the path of the Russian advance from the North.\u00a0The Armenians rebelled in the Saray and Ba\u015fkale regions, at the two major\u00a0passes that the Russians were to use in their invasion from Iran. The\u00a0Armenians rebelled in the region near \u00c7atak, at the mountain passes needed\u00a0for the Ottomans to bring up troops to the Iran frontier, the passes needed for the Ottoman retreat. The Armenians rebelled in great numbers in Sivas\u00a0Province and in \u015eebinkarahisar. This would seem to be an odd place for a\u00a0revolt, a region where the Armenians were outnumbered by the Muslims ten to\u00a0one, but Sivas was tactically important. It was the railhead from which all\u00a0supplies and men passed to the Front, basically along one road. It was the\u00a0prefect site for guerilla action to harass Ottoman supply lines. The\u00a0Armenians also rebelled in Cilicia, the intended site for a British invasion\u00a0that would have cut the rail links to the South. It was not the fault of the\u00a0rebels that the British preferred to attempt the madness at Gallipoli\u00a0instead of an attack in Cilicia that would surely have been more successful.<\/p>\n

All these regions were the very spots a military planner would choose to\u00a0most damage the Ottoman war effort. <\/strong>It cannot be an accident that they were\u00a0also the spots chosen by the rebels for their revolt. Anyone can see that\u00a0the revolts were a disaster for the Army. The disaster was compounded by the\u00a0fact that the Ottomans were forced to withdraw whole divisions from the\u00a0Front to battle the Armenian rebels. The war might have been much different\u00a0if these divisions had been able to fight the Russians, not the rebels. I\u00a0agree with Field-Marshall Pomiankowski<\/strong>, who was the only real European\u00a0historian of World War I in the Ottoman Empire, that the Armenian rebellion\u00a0was the key to the Ottoman defeat in the East.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Only after seven months of Armenian rebellion did the Ottomans order the\u00a0deportation of Armenians (May 26-30, 1915).<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Ottoman Record<\/strong><\/p>\n

How do we know that this analysis is true? It is, after all, very different\u00a0than what is usually called the history of the Armenians. We know it is true\u00a0because it is the product of reasoned historical analysis, not ideology.<\/strong><\/p>\n

To understand this, we must consider the difference between history and\u00a0ideology, the difference between scientific analysis and nationalist belief,\u00a0the difference between the proper historian and the ideologue.<\/strong> To the\u00a0historian what matters is the attempt to find the objective truth.<\/strong> To the\u00a0nationalist ideologue what matters is the triumph of his cause. A proper\u00a0historian first searches for evidence, then make up his mind. An ideologue\u00a0first makes up his mind, then looks for evidence.<\/p>\n

A historian looks for historical context. In particular, he judges the\u00a0reliability of witnesses. He judges if those who gave reports had reason to\u00a0lie. An ideologue takes evidence wherever he can find it, and may invent the\u00a0evidence he cannot find. He does not look too closely at the evidence,\u00a0perhaps because he is afraid of what he will find. As an example, the\u00a0ideologues contend that the trials of Ottoman leaders after World War I\u00a0prove that the Turks were guilty of genocide. They do not mention that the\u00a0so-called trials reached their verdicts when the British controlled\u00a0Istanbul. They do not mention that the courts were in the hands of the\u00a0Quisling Damad Ferid Pa\u015fa government, which had a long record of lying about\u00a0its enemies, the Committee of Union and Progress. They do not mention that\u00a0Damad Ferid would do anything to please the British and keep his job. They\u00a0do not mention that the British, more honest than their lackeys, admitted\u00a0that they could not find evidence of any\u00a0 “genocide.” They do not mention\u00a0that the defendants were not represented by their own lawyers. They do not\u00a0mention that crimes against Armenians were only a small part of a long list\u00a0of so-called crimes, everything the judges could invent. The ideologues do\u00a0not mention that the courts should best be compared to those convened by\u00a0Josef Stalin. The ideologues do not mention this evidence.<\/strong><\/p>\n

A historian first discovers what actually happened, then tries to explain\u00a0the reasons. An ideologue forgets the process of discovery. He assumes that\u00a0what he believes is correct, then constructs a theory to explain it. The\u00a0work of Dr. Taner Ak\u00e7am is an example of this. He first accepts completely\u00a0the beliefs of the Armenian nationalists. He then constructs an elaborate sociological theory, claiming that genocide was the result of Turkish\u00a0history and the Turkish character. This sort of analysis is like a house\u00a0built on a foundation of sand. The house looks good, but the first strong\u00a0wind knocks it down. In this case, the strong wind that destroys the theory\u00a0is the force of the truth.<\/p>\n

A historian knows that one has to look back in history, sometimes far back\u00a0in history, to find the causes of events. An ideologue does not bother.\u00a0Again, he may be afraid of what he will find. Reading the Armenian\u00a0Nationalists one would assume that the Armenian Question began in 1894. Very\u00a0seldom does one find in their work mention of Armenian alliances with the\u00a0Russians against the Turks stretching back to the eighteenth century<\/strong>. One\u00a0never finds recognition that it was the Russians and the Armenians\u00a0themselves who began to dissolve 700 years of peace between Turks and\u00a0Armenians. These are important matters for the historian, but they hurt the\u00a0cause of the ideologue.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The historian studies. The ideologue wages a political war. From the start\u00a0the Armenian Question has been a political campaign. Materials that have\u00a0been used to write the long-accepted and false history of the Armenian\u00a0Question were written as political documents. <\/strong>They were written for\u00a0political effect. Whether they were articles in the Dashnak newspaper or\u00a0false documents produced by the British Propaganda Office, they were\u00a0propaganda, not sources of accurate history.<\/strong> Historians have examined and\u00a0rejected all these so-called “historical sources.” Yet the same falsehoods\u00a0continually appear as “proof” that there was an Armenian Genocide. The lies\u00a0have existed for so long, the lies have been repeated so many times, that\u00a0those who do not know the real history assume that the lies are true.<\/strong><\/p>\n

It is not only Americans and Europeans who have been fooled.<\/strong> Recently I read\u00a0a two-volume work written by a Turkish scholar. Much of what appears on the\u00a0Armenians is absolute nonsense. For example, in 1908 in the City of Van,\u00a0Ottoman officials discovered an arsenal of Dashnak weapons–2,000 guns,\u00a0hundreds of thousands of cartridges, 5,000 bombs–all in preparation for an\u00a0Armenian revolt. Armenians rebels fought Ottoman troops briefly, then fled.<\/strong> This event is described in all the diplomatic literature and books on Van.\u00a0The author, however, says what occurred was a revolt of 1,000 Turks (!)\u00a0against the government, and mentions no rebel weapons.<\/strong> How could such a\u00a0mistake be made? It was because of the source. The author took all\u00a0information from the Dashnak Party newspaper!<\/strong><\/p>\n

We must affirm a basic principle: Those who take propaganda as their source\u00a0themselves write propaganda, not history.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Too many scholars, Turks and non-Turks alike, have accepted the lies of\u00a0groups like the Dashnak Party<\/strong> and not even looked at the internal reports of\u00a0the Ottomans.<\/strong> Scholars have the right to make mistakes, but scholars also\u00a0have a duty to look at all sources of information before they write. It is\u00a0wrong to base writings on political propaganda and to ignore the honest\u00a0reports of the Ottomans. The first place to look for Ottoman history should\u00a0be the records of the Ottomans.<\/p>\n

Why rely on Ottoman archival accounts to write history? Because they are the\u00a0sort of solid data that is the basis of all good history. The Ottomans did\u00a0not write propaganda for today’s media. The reports of Ottoman soldiers and\u00a0officials were not political documents or public relations exercises. They\u00a0were secret internal reports in which responsible men relayed what they\u00a0believed to be true to their government. They might sometimes have been\u00a0mistaken, but they were never liars. There is no record of deliberate\u00a0deception in Ottoman documents. Compare this to the dismal history of\u00a0Armenian Nationalist deceptions: fake statistics on population, fake\u00a0statements attributed to Mustafa Kemal, fake telegrams of Talat Pa\u015fa, fake reports in a Blue Book, misuse of court records and, worst of all, no\u00a0mention of Turks who were killed by Armenians.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I have been asked to make suggestions as to what Turks can do to correct\u00a0false history. I hesitate to do so, because Turks already know what has to\u00a0be done–opposing the lies that are told about their ancestors. You are\u00a0already doing it. It is a hard fight: The prejudices about Turks stand in\u00a0your way, and those who oppose you are politically strong, but the truth is on your side. I am very pleased that the Turks, and the Turkish Parliament,\u00a0are uniting to oppose the lies told about the Turks. The recent agreement\u00a0between Prime Minister Erdo\u011fan, and Minority Leader Baykal, prove that the\u00a0Turks are taking action. The attempt by the Tarih Kurumu to debate and\u00a0discuss with Armenian scholars proves that the Turks are taking action. The\u00a0many books on this issue now being printed by Turkish scholars prove that\u00a0the Turks are taking action. Men like \u015e\u00fckr\u00fc Elekda\u011f are fighting for the\u00a0truth. I and others who have long opposed the lies are glad we are not\u00a0alone.<\/p>\n

In the past, scholars, including myself, have proposed that Turkish and\u00a0Armenian historians, along with others who study this history, should meet\u00a0to research and debate the history of the Turks and Armenians. Prime\u00a0Minister Erdo\u011fan and Dr. Baykal have proposed that all archives be opened to\u00a0a joint commission on the Armenian Question. This is exactly what should be\u00a0done. Most important, they have declared that historians should settle this\u00a0question. They have also shown that Turks have nothing to fear from the\u00a0truth.<\/strong><\/p>\n

We can only hope that scholarly integrity will triumph over politics and the\u00a0Armenian Nationalists will join in debate. I am not hopeful they will do so.\u00a0I recently gave two talks at the University of Minnesota, a center of\u00a0so-called “Armenian Genocide Studies.” Dr. Taner Ak\u00e7am teaches there. Dr.\u00a0Ak\u00e7am was invited to my lectures, but did not come. In fact, no Armenian came. Instead all notices of the lecture were torn down, so that others\u00a0would not know I was speaking.<\/p>\n

This is not a scholarly approach. It is political. The Armenian Nationalists\u00a0have decided that they will win their political fight if no one knows there\u00a0is a scholarly opposition to their ideology. Therefore, Armenian\u00a0Nationalists will only meet with Turks who first state that Turks committed\u00a0genocide. These are described in the American and European press as “Turkish\u00a0scholars.” Readers are left with the impression, a carefully-cultivated\u00a0impression, that Turkish scholars believe there was a genocide. Readers are\u00a0left with the impression that it is only the Turkish Government that denies\u00a0there was a genocide.<\/strong><\/p>\n

We know this is not true. Every year many books and articles are published\u00a0in Turkey that not only deny the “Armenian Genocide” but document Armenian\u00a0persecution of Turks. Conferences are held. Mass graves of innocent Turks\u00a0killed by Armenian Nationalists are found<\/strong>. Museums and monuments are opened\u00a0to commemorate the Turkish dead<\/strong>. Historians who have seen the Ottoman\u00a0archival records or read the Turkish books on the Armenian Question do not\u00a0accept the idea of a genocide. T<\/strong>hey know that in wartime many Armenians were\u00a0killed by Turks, and that many Turks were killed by Armenians. They know\u00a0that this was war, not genocide.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Why do so many in my country and Europe believe that the small group of\u00a0Turks who accept the Armenian Nationalists beliefs represent Turkish\u00a0scholarship? Why is it believed that these Turks speak for the real beliefs\u00a0of Turkish professors? Part of the reason is prejudice. Prejudice against\u00a0Turks has existed for so long that it easy for people to believe that Turks<\/strong> must have been guilty. Another reason, however, is that few in Europe and\u00a0America know that real Turkish scholarship on this issue exists.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Excellent work on the Armenian Question is now being written in Turkey. As\u00a0you know, for too long Turks did not study the history of the Turks and\u00a0Armenians. This has now changed. Anyone who has seen modern Turkish work on\u00a0the Armenian Question must be impressed. The Tarih Kurumu has taken the lead\u00a0in this, as it should. I obviously do not believe that Turks should be the\u00a0only ones who write Turkish history, but Turks should be the main historians\u00a0of Turkey. It is your country and your history. The problem lies in bringing\u00a0the excellent history now being written in Turkey and the documents of\u00a0Turkish history to scholars, politicians, and the public in other countries.\u00a0The problem is that Turkish historians naturally write in Turkish, and\u00a0Europeans and Americans do not read Turkish.<\/p>\n

Should those who write the history of Turkey read Turkish? Yes, of course\u00a0they should read Turkish. Should they use the many books on Turkish history\u00a0written in Turkish? Yes, of course they should do so. Should they understand\u00a0all sides of an issue, including the Turkish side, before they write? Yes,\u00a0because that is a scholar’s duty. Do they always do so? No. In particular,\u00a0most books on the so-called “Armenian Genocide” do not refer to modern\u00a0Turkish studies. It is no use saying this is wrong. It is no use telling\u00a0scholars to learn Turkish. They will not or cannot do so. To be fair, there\u00a0are few places in my own country where Turkish is taught. The only answer is\u00a0that the Turkish books must be translated into other languages, especially\u00a0English, which is understood all over the world.
\nA start has been made. Today there are valuable books, originally in\u00a0Turkish, that have been translated. These include Esat Uras<\/strong>‘ excellent, if\u00a0now outdated, history, the recent publication on the Armenian Question by\u00a0the Turkish Parliament, the history written by the Turkish Foreign Office,\u00a0the late K\u00e2muran G\u00fcr\u00fcn’s Armenian File<\/strong>, Orel and Yuca’s Talat Pa\u015fa<\/strong> Telegrams, and others. <\/strong>The series of Ottoman documents on the Armenian\u00a0Question, translated and published by the General Staff, the Ottoman\u00a0Archives, the Tarih Kurumu, and the Foreign Ministry, are perhaps the most\u00a0valuable of all. But there are so many others that are needed There are too\u00a0many to list here, but I note that even the memoirs of K\u00e2zim Karabekir <\/strong>and\u00a0Ahmet Refik<\/strong> have not been translated. All these books should be read by the\u00a0widest possible audience. They should be translated.<\/p>\n

And the translations must include books that seem to be on topics other than\u00a0the Armenian Question. There are no accurate and detailed military histories\u00a0of World War I in the Ottoman Empire in any European language. What exists\u00a0is often wrong, and not only wrong on the Armenians. General histories of\u00a0World War I, for example, name the wrong generals, move troops to the wrong\u00a0places, and never seem to understand Ottoman strategy. They seldom mention\u00a0the one most significant factor in the war-the incredible strength and\u00a0endurance of Turkish soldiers. Why is this important to the Armenian\u00a0Question? It is important because the danger from the Armenian rebellion and\u00a0the reason for the Armenian deportations cannot be understood unless the\u00a0military situation is understood. The Ottoman sources prove that the\u00a0Armenian rebellion was an essential part of the Russian military plan. The\u00a0Ottoman sources prove that the Armenian rebellion was an important part of\u00a0the Russian victory. The Ottoman\u00a0 sources prove that the Armenian rebels\u00a0were, in effect, soldiers in the Russian Army.<\/strong><\/p>\n

There is a series of military histories that accurately portray the events\u00a0of the Ottoman wars and the Turkish War of Independence-the histories\u00a0published by the Turkish General Staff– many volumes, filled with great\u00a0detail, many maps, and descriptions of Ottoman plans and actions. These\u00a0books are based on the reports of the Ottoman soldiers themselves, not only on the reports of the Ottoman enemies. They should be read by every\u00a0historian of World War I. Yet these books are in Turkish. If they are ever\u00a0to be used in America and Europe, they must be in English.<\/p>\n

And there must be many more accurate and honest books on Turkey for teachers\u00a0and students in Europe and Americ<\/strong>a<\/strong>. Only by telling the truth to youth can\u00a0the prejudices against Turks be finally ended. We have made a start.<\/strong> The\u00a0Istanbul Chambers of Commerce have financed the first detailed book on\u00a0Turkey for American teachers. Many more books are needed.<\/p>\n

Finally, I wish to comment on current politics. Some may feel that I should\u00a0not do so. I am not a Turk, and this is surely a Turkish problem. Nor am I a\u00a0political scientist or a politician. I am a historian. I am speaking on this\u00a0problem because it is basically a historical question. As a historian, I am\u00a0infuriated when any group, or any country, is ordered to lie about its\u00a0history.<\/strong> The political problem I am speaking of is the growing cry from\u00a0Europe that Turkey must admit the “Armenian Genocide” before it can enter\u00a0the European Union.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I am angry that anyone can believe that accepting a lie about Turkish\u00a0history will somehow be a benefit to Europe or to Turkey. I know, and I\u00a0believe you know, that it will make matters much worse.<\/p>\n

Today the Armenian Nationalists are proclaiming in the parliaments of Europe\u00a0and the Congress of the United States that they only want Turkey to admit\u00a0that genocide occurred, then all will be well. I once spoke to an American\u00a0official who told me that the Turks should say, “Yes, we did it, sorry,” and\u00a0then forget it. I asked him if he thought the Turks had committed genocide.\u00a0He replied that he did not know and did not care. <\/strong>I told him the Turks would\u00a0never lie like that about their fathers and grandfathers. He told me I was\u00a0na\u00efve. But he was the one who was na\u00efve, because he believed that the\u00a0Armenian Nationalists would be satisfied with an apology.<\/p>\n

The plan of the Armenian Nationalists has not changed in more than 100\u00a0years<\/strong>. It is to create an Armenia in Eastern Anatolia and the Southern\u00a0Caucasus, regardless of the wishes of the people who live there.<\/strong> The\u00a0Armenian Nationalists have made their plan quite clear. First, the Turkish\u00a0Republic is to state that there was an “Armenian Genocide” and to apologize\u00a0for it. Second, the Turks are to pay reparations. Third, an Armenian state\u00a0is to be created. The Nationalists are very specific on the borders of this\u00a0state. The map you see is based on the program of the Dashnak Party and the\u00a0Armenian Republic. It shows what the Armenian Nationalists claim. The map\u00a0also shows the population of the areas claimed in Turkey and the number of\u00a0Armenians in the world.<\/strong><\/p>\n

If the Armenians were to be given what they claim, and if every Armenian in\u00a0the world were to come to Eastern Anatolia, their numbers would still be\u00a0only half of the number of those Turkish citizens who live there now. <\/strong>Of\u00a0course, the Armenians of California, Massachusetts, and France would never\u00a0come in great numbers to Eastern Anatolia. The population of the new\u00a0“Armenia” would be less than one-fourth Armenian at best. Could such a state\u00a0long exist? Yes, it could exist, but only if the Turks were expelled. That\u00a0was the policy of the Armenian Nationalists in 1915. It would be their\u00a0policy tomorrow.<\/strong><\/p>\n

We should be very clear on Armenian claims. Their claims are not based on\u00a0history, because Armenians have not ruled in Eastern Anatolia for more than\u00a0900 years. Their claims are not based on culture: Before the revolutionaries\u00a0and the Russians destroyed all peace, the Armenians and Turks shared the\u00a0same culture. Armenians were integrated into the Ottoman system, and most of\u00a0the Armenians spoke Turkish. They ate the same food as the Turks, shared the\u00a0same music, and lived in the same sorts of houses. The Armenian claims are\u00a0surely not based on a belief in democracy: Armenians have not been a\u00a0majority in Eastern Anatolia for centuries, and they would be a small\u00a0minority there now. Their claims are based on their nationalist ideology.\u00a0That ideology is unchanging. It was the same in 1895 and 1915 as it is in\u00a02005. <\/strong>They believe there should be an “Armenia” in Eastern Turkey-no matter\u00a0the history, no matter the rights of the people who live there.<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n

History teaches that the Armenian Nationalists will not stop their claims if\u00a0the Turks forget the truth and say there was an Armenian Genocide. They will\u00a0not cease to claim Erzurum and Van because the Turks have apologized for a\u00a0crime they did not commit. No. They will increase their efforts. They will\u00a0say, “The Turks have admitted they did it. Now they must pay for their\u00a0crimes.”<\/strong> The same critics who now say the Turks should admit genocide will\u00a0say the Turks should pay reparations. Then they will demand the Turks give\u00a0Erzurum and Van and Elazi\u011f and Sivas and Bitlis and Trabzon to Armenia.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I know the Turks will not give in to this pressure. The Turks will not\u00a0submit, because they know that to do so would simply be wrong. How can it be\u00a0right to become a member of an organization that demands you lie as the\u00a0price of admission? Would any honest man join an organization that said,\u00a0“You can only join us if you first falsely say that your father was a\u00a0murderer?”<\/strong><\/p>\n

I hope and trust that the European Union will reject the demands of the\u00a0Armenian Nationalists.<\/strong> I hope they will realize that the Armenian\u00a0Nationalists are not concerned with what is best for Europe. But whatever\u00a0the European Union demands, I have faith in the honor of the Turks. What I\u00a0know of the Turks tells me that they will never falsely say there was an<\/strong> Armenian Genocide.<\/strong> I have faith in the honesty of the Turks. I know that the\u00a0Turks will resist demands to confess to a crime they did not commit, no\u00a0matter the price of honesty. <\/strong>I have faith in the integrity of the Turks. I\u00a0know that the Turks will not lie about this history. I know that the Turks\u00a0will never say their fathers were murderers. I have that faith in the Turks.<\/strong><\/p>\n

–Justin McCarthy<\/strong>
\n——————————— [1] FO 424\/196, Elliot to Currie, Tabreez, May 5, 1898. [2] FO 195\/2949, Molyneux-Seel to Lowther, Van, February 17, 1913. [3] FO 195\/2375 Molyneux-Seele to Lowther, Van, 9 October 1911. [4] FO 195\/2283, Dickson to O’Conor, Van, March 15, 1908. [5] FO 371\/1783 Molyneux-Seele to Lowther, Van, 4 April, 1913. ————————————- The above is written by Prof. Dr. Justin McCarthy.\u00a0 Quite a few other\u00a0historians and\/or professors were forced to stop talking about the subject\u00a0back in 1985.\u00a0 Archives are not disclosed because of political reasons, but\u00a0the Ottoman\/Turkish archives are open to whoever would like to review them.\u00a0The truth is that the Turks deserve apologies from all nations which are\u00a0thoroughly familiar of what really happened, but trying to twist the facts\u00a0for political reasons.\u00a0 History will condemn those governments.<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Justin McCarthy The History Conflict between the Turks and the Armenians was not inevitable. The two\u00a0peoples should have been friends. When World War I began, the Armenians and\u00a0Turks had been living together for 800 years. The Armenians of Anatolia and\u00a0Europe had been Ottoman subjects for nearly 400 years. There were problems\u00a0during those centuries-problems caused […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":83,"featured_media":52500,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11445","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-armenian-question"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.turkishnews.com\/en\/content\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11445","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.turkishnews.com\/en\/content\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.turkishnews.com\/en\/content\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.turkishnews.com\/en\/content\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/83"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.turkishnews.com\/en\/content\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11445"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.turkishnews.com\/en\/content\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11445\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.turkishnews.com\/en\/content\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/52500"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.turkishnews.com\/en\/content\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11445"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.turkishnews.com\/en\/content\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11445"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.turkishnews.com\/en\/content\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11445"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}