30.12.05

488) Media Scanner Dec 2005


  • Labor Party Proves Lie Of So-called Armenian Genocide On Basis Of Armenian Documents
  • Retired Professor Slams Armenian Claims Of Genocide
  • Court To Look At Mitterand's "Operation Turquoise" In 1994 Genocide
  • Rwanda Genocide Probe Eyes French Army
  • Leaflets Depicting Turkish Symbol Of Crescent And Star Were Posted In Georgian Armenian Region


Labor Party Proves Lie Of So-called Armenian Genocide On Basis Of Armenian Documents

ANKARA - Labor Party (IP) leader Dogu Perincek said, ''with a project we prepare, we will prove with Armenian resources and documents that so-called Armenian genocide is a lie.''

Giving information about their project, Perincek said, ''China, India as well as African and Middle Eastern countries do not recognize so-called Armenian genocide. Imperialist countries take so-called Armenian genocide decisions.''
''After the World War I, first Premier of Armenia Hovhannes Katchaznouni as well as Armenian commanders and historians wrote that they became tool of imperialists in their reports and books. We have initiated the Big Project 2006. We will prepare 7 books within that scope and distribute them abroad. We will prove with Armenian resources and documents to the world that so-called Armenian genocide is a lie.''

Perincek said, ''5 million Turks are living abroad. The victory we won in Switzerland will continue in Germany, France and Belgium as well. We will march in Washington D.C. on April 24th.''

12/19/2005

AFP



Retired professor slams Armenian claims of genocide

Speaking at a conference in Mugla called "Turks, Armenians, and the Truth in History," Professor Turkkaya Ataov, noting that many Turkish intellectuals have been killed for their stance on the so-called Armenian genocide, said "We have put on our grave shrouds. We are determined to go down this path, and whatever happens doesn't matter, since we'll die anyway. We might as well fall as fighters for our country." . . . "1,000 years of peace with Armenians"

Grabbing the microphone out of turn during the symposium to speak to the audience, retired Professor Ataov also said the following: "I want to bring the end point to the beginning in what I say: The Turks did not commit genocide against the Armenians either before or after World War I. The truth is that Turks, beginning from the time of the Selcuks, have had peaceful relations with the Armenians for one thousand years. The reason for the tension in 1915 was that the Armenians, despite promises that had been made, joined in the Russian army in attacks on Muslim villages."

Comments greeted by applause from audience members

Speaking further, Professor Ataov said "We continue our struggle against these allegations. In 40 years, we have published 137 books on this subject; only a madman would attempt this. We are determined to go down this path." Noting that Turkey had only recently awoken to the severity and seriousness of the Armenian claims of genocide, Professor Ataov's comments were applauded at length by the approximately 700 audience members filling the salon.

AFP


Court to look at Mitterand's "Operation Turquoise" in 1994 genocide

Kim Willsher in Paris

The Guardian


The French army has been put under official investigation on charges of having taken part in the Rwandan genocide.


Despite official attempts to block the move, a military court is to look into claims that soldiers serving as part of Operation Turquoise in Rwanda not only failed to stop the killing but participated in the slaughter of about 800,000 people. . . .
Six Rwandans who survived the 1994 genocide have brought the claim of "complicity to genocide and/or crimes against humanity" against French forces. The military court dismissed four of them but is focusing on the cases of two Rwandans. The Rwandans' lawyer, William Bourdon, described it as a "half measure". "This investigation remains at the moment incomplete because of the incomprehensible resistance of the prosecutor to unlimited inquiries," he said. "But it is an important step and the extension of the inquiry into the facts charged by the other four plaintiffs is inevitable," he told AFP.

Article continues
The majority of those killed in the violence sparked by the death of Juvenal Habyarimana, the then president, in a plane crash were Tutsis massacred by Hutus.

Auréa Mukakalisa, aged 27 at the time, has testified that she was raped by Hutu militia at the Murambi refugee camp while it was controlled by French soldiers. "Hutu militiamen came into the camp and pointed out the Tutsis who the French soldiers then forced to leave," she told the French investigating magistrate, Brigitte Raymaud.

"I saw the militiamen kill them - I saw French soldiers themselves kill Tutsis using gleaming big knives."

The second plaintiff, Innocent Gisanura, aged 14 at the time, was among thousands of Tutsis who fled to escape the violence. "We were attacked and chased by militiamen and I affirm that the French soldiers watched what was happening in their vehicles without doing anything," he told Ms Raymaud.

Kim Willsher in Paris
December 27, 2005
The Guardian




Rwanda genocide probe eyes French army
KIGALI, Rwanda (UPI) -- A Rwandan prosecutor has opened a formal inquiry to determine if French troops conspired, or assisted in the 1994 massacre of some 800,000 Rwandan Tutsis.

A lawsuit was filed by six survivors who said they witnessed atrocities committed with the complicity of the French Army, but military investigator Jacques Baillet rejected four of the plaintiffs on grounds they had not suffered personally. . . .
The unrest and massacres began after Rwandan President Juvenal Habyarimana was killed in a plane crash, and France deployed a force of about 2,500 soldiers to its former colony.

One of the two survivors said in a statement she watched French soldiers use knives to kill fellow Tutsis while another said French soldiers watched and did nothing as Hutus chased and killed Tutsis from a jungle camp.

French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie described the claims as outlandish, The Times of London said Monday.

In 1998, a French parliamentary committee attempted to investigate France`s role in the genocide, but most of the evidence it examined was classified as a state secret.

Copyright 2005 by United Press International
Dec 26, 2005,



Leaflets Depicting Turkish Symbol Of Crescent And Star Were Posted In Georgian Armenian Region

It is reported that anonymous people posted leaflets in Russian on the buildings of Akhalkalaki in Georgian Javakheti region, depicting Turkish Symbol of crescent and star and signed by Brigade of Akhaltsikhe Liberation.

The leaflets urged local Armenian people to immediately move from the region and said that “otherwise you will face with genocide like your ancestors in 1915”. . .
The Council of Samtskhe-Javakh Social Organizations issued a statement and said that “those responsible for these activities play with fire and inciting local people is no benefit for both Georgians and Armenians”.

David Rstakyan, the leader of VIRK, a party of Javakh Armenians said that these leaflets are likely posted by Georgian secret service. According to Rstakyan, Georgia is not ready for accepting Ahiska Turks and tried to create a belief that those responsible for this are Armenians by inciting anti-Turkish feelings among Armenians.

We remembered Rstakyan with his past remarks that “Ahiska Turks will capture Javakheti and thus, Turkish threat will escalate”. It is waited curiously for reaction of Georgian government to Rstakyan’s claims. Since political observers agreed that Georgia will not take the risk to make Turkey anger.

www.diplomaticobserver.com

Read The Full Post by Clicking Here Read Full Post !

487) Infographics : High Rank Armenian Officials In The Ottoman Empire


Source


Read The Full Post by Clicking Here Read Full Post !

486) 60th Anniversary Of The Genocide Convention by Alberto Costi

© This content Mirrored From  http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com
On 9 December 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. A symbolic response to the atrocities perpetrated by the Nazi regime during World War II, the Convention quickly succumbed to the politics of the Cold War. Its renaissance in the 1990s owes much to the thaw in East-West relations and the emergence of international criminal law and institutions in the aftermath of the events in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. As we celebrate the 60 th anniversary of this venerable instrument, time is ripe for an assessment of the Convention, in particular the extent to which recent international developments have curbed genocide and other related acts. This article examines the backdrop against which the Convention was adopted, including the reasons explaining why genocide developed as a separate crime. It then looks at the definition that was eventually adopted, including the issues surrounding acts of genocide, protected groups and the requisite intent to prove genocide, and argues that political considerations have shorn the Convention of some important elements. The final part of the paper offers a few general reflections on post-Cold War developments aimed at eradicating genocide and other international crimes.
. .

Read The Full Post by Clicking Here Read Full Post !

485) The Murder of Grand Vizier Said Halim Pasha in the Memoirs of an Armenian Defender


The Murder of Grand Vizier Said Halim Pasha in the Memoirs of an Armenian Defender
Asst. Prof. Dr. M. Hanefi Bostan


Mehmed Said Halim Pasha was an important statesman who was grand vizier in the Ottoman Empire between the dates 12 June 1913 – 3 February 1917 and one of the important representatives of the movement of “Islamism.” The decisions about the deportations of Armenians were taken during the period when he was the grand vizier. He was taken to Bekirağa Bölüğü prison after being arrested as a war and deportation criminal on 10 March 1919 by the Damat Ferit Pasha government formed after the Treaty of Mondros and he was tried in Divan-I Harb-I Örfi. He was exiled first to Mondros by the British occupying forces on 28 May 1919 and then to Malta. Though the British made great efforts to try the Pasha in their own courts, they could not find enough evidence to require his conviction. He was released from Malta on 29 April 1921 in exchange for British captives (Bostan, 1992: 33-103).

Said Halim Pasha went to Sicily after his release and from there he went to Rome. Though he wanted to come back to Istanbul when he was in Sicily, this was not permitted. He could not also go to Egypt which was under British occupation (Inal, 1982: 1912 ftn.1; Danişmend, 1972: 466-467; Talat Pasha, 1983: 1224; Düzdağ, 1991: XXV). He settled in Rome by renting a mansion in Via Eostollio. He was threatened by Armenians in Rome just as he was in Malta (Gazigiray, 1982: 547; Kutay, t.y.:10275; Bülbül, 2006: 97).

Said Halim Pasha started to be followed by the Armenian terrorist organization Dashnaksutyun right after he was released from Malta. An execution office was founded in Istanbul in 1919 inside the building where Djagadamard, the media organ of this terrorist organization, was being published. A militant was sent to Rome from this office to follow Said Halim Pasha. Then, Arşavir Şıracıyan went to Marseille on 30 June 1921 and from there he went to Rome to carry out the execution (Şıracıyan, 1997: 87, 141, 143, 144-149).

According to the confessions of the Armenian terrorist Arşavir Şıracıyan, the central committee of the Dashnaksutyun Party had condemned to death old administrators of the Union and Progress Party including Said Halim Pasha and Enver Pasha, Cemal Pasha, Dr Nazım, Dr Bahattin Şakir, Ismail Canpolat and former Trabzon governor Cemal Azmi Bey by trying them in their absence (Şiraciyan, 1997: 141). As soon as he arrived in Rome, Şıracıyan followed Said Halim Pasha until the beginning of December 1921 with «Yoldaş M» who was sent before to gather information. He gathered detailed information regarding where the Pasha lived, whom he met, by whom he was followed, which meetings he attended, what time he left his mansion and he returned to the mansion, his bodyguard and his servant.

According to the information given by the Armenian defender Şıracıyan, Said Halim Pasha was in strong touch with Bekir Sami Bey, the Foreign Deputy of the Anatolian government. He also informed that the Pasha met authorities coming from the Rome embassies of both the Istanbul and Anatolia governments and his bodyguard, Tevfik Azmi, occasionally went to both of the embassies (Şıracıyan, 1997: 154). Though it is known that the Pasha met Ali Fethi Okyar in Rome (Okyar, 1988: 17), it is also understood that he met Enver Pasha, Dr Nazım and Dr Bahattin Şakir (Şıracıyan, 1997, p. 152-154).

It appears that not only Armenian terrorists, but also Greeks followed Said Halim Pasha in Rome. Şıracıyan writes in his confessions: “Greeks were closely following the representatives and political officers of Mustafa Kemal to be able to gather intelligence for their aims. They had a quite impressive organization; there were more than 20 men only in Rome for this job. They were behaving as if they also wanted to plan an assassination on Said Halim. They had also learnt that this old prime minister of the Ottoman Empire had sent arms and economic help in considerable amounts to Kemalist forces in Anatolia” (Şıracıyan, 1997: 162).

Bekir Sami Bey asked from Said Halim Pasha to “send arms to Anatolia and help Mustafa Kemal by using his economic sources for this purpose.” Şıracıyan writes that he secretly listened to the conversations of Said Halim Pasha’s bodyguard Tevfik Azmi and Rüstem Recep and Münir Bey, and he came to know in these conversations that as a response to this demand of Bekir Sami Bey, Said Halim Pasha stated that he “was ready to help them on the condition that some administrators of the Union and Progress Party who were in exile at the time would be allowed to go to Anatolia first and return to Istanbul after the defeat of Greek army” (Şıracıyan, 1997: 156). It is known that as well as Said Halim Pasha, his brother Abbas Halim Pasha also financially contributed to the Mustafa Kemal government and believed in and supported the movement of National Struggle (Istanbul Harbinden Gizli Kalmış Sayfalar, 1959: 44-45).

Şıracıyan records that he saw a group of Turks, including Bekir Sami Bey, intensely discussing and when he secretly listened to them he heard that the conversations were revolving around “the debt of two million pounds which Said Halim Pasha was trying to obtain for Kemalists” and “they were in agreement with the idea that arms should be sent to Anatolia as quick as possible” (Şıracıyan, 1997: 178-179).

When Said Halim Pasha was returning to his mansion in his carriage with his bodyguard Tevfik Azmi Bey at around 16.00 on 5 December 1921, he was killed with a single bullet by Arşavir Şıracıyan who jumped on his carriage in Estaki Street. Şıracıyan was able to escape the place without being caught. Şıracıyan confesses that he attempted to kill Said Halim Pasha twice before, but he could not do so as the conditions were not available (Şıracıyan, 1997: 177-178).

The murder of the Pasha brought unrest to some groups in Italy. The assassination happened in a period when the Pasha had come to the stage of agreement in his attempts to buy arms from Italian arm factories. It is stated that in the first days after the assassination Italian media “had an inclination of justifying the murderer” but in later days, they started to change attitude “when it was revealed that the murder of the wealthy pasha damaged financial interests of some Italian banks and left various commercial agreements at stake” (Şıracıyan, 1997: 199-201).

Despite all of these, it is seen that there was no serious attempt by the police to arrest Arşavir Şıracıyan who walked around freely in Rome more than 20 days after the assassination and who even spent his last days with Armenian students in Rome. The murderer, consequently, went to Vienna on 29 December 1921 by train. Şıracıyan tells that the Greeks got very happy about the assassination of Said Halim Pasha and “when they went to the house of Greek Consul with terrorist Varantian, the consul vehemently embraced him then honoured him with a medal and slipped an advisory letter in his hand” (Şıracıyan, 1997: 190-213). Armenian defenders, on the other hand, declared Arşavir Şıracıyan as a «national hero» (Gazigiray, 1982: 548).

The body of Said Halim Pasha could come to Istanbul only 19 days later than the arrival of his murderer Şıracıyan in Istanbul. Şıracıyan describes the atmosphere when his body was being taken from his waterside residence in Yeniköy: “more than ten thousands Turks including ministers and high ranked soldiers followed the cortege. Even the foreigners had come to salute in front of the coffin of this murderer. While the police and soldiers of the Allied Forces were ensuring the security, the French and Italian warships in the harbour had half-masted their flags. Only the British were in a formal silence”(Şıracıyan, 1997: 216-220). The body of Said Halim Pasha was buried next to the grave of his father in the garden of the Sultan Mahmud II Tomb.

Just like Talat Pasha, Said Halim Pasha was also killed by hired Armenian defenders. It is thought that the power who ordered these assassinations was the British Intelligence Service (Bostan, 1994: 2). According to the words of Galip Kemali Bey (Söylemezoğlu), it is understood that Said Halim Pasha’s detailed letter which he wrote to three Presidents and explained the Armenian issue when he was in exile in Malta, had a great impact on American President and General Harbord who was instructed to establish the Armenian State was warned after this letter. Said Halim Pasha had the persuasive skill and necessary equipment to be able to get his opinions accepted by authorities. As the old prime minister told Eşref Kuşçubaşı, America was not aware of the game of European countries. For this reason, Said Halim Pasha, released from Malta, was killed by the British, as they feared that he would tell the American public of his realities (Kutay, 1970:16; Düzdağ, 1991: XXV-XXVI).

These questions are still to be solved here. Why was Halim Said Pasha killed just the day before he was going to sign a contract for two million pounds with Italian banks to send arms to Anatolia? Why didn’t the British occupying forces which were very harsh on Unionists arrest Arşavur Şıracıyan who stayed in Istanbul for about one and half month after murdering Said Halim Pasha in Rome? While the French and Italian warships half-masted their flags when the coffin of Said Halim Pasha was being carried, why didn’t the British warships accompany them?

Bibliography

———-, (15 December 1994), “Said Halim Paşa’yı Kimler Öldürttü?”, Gündüz, p. 2.

———-(1970), “Siyasi Sürgün Said Halim Paşa’nın Hatıralarında İmparatorluğumuz ve Birinci Cihan Savaşı.” Sohbetler, p. 72-96.

“İstiklal Harbinden Gizli Kalmış Sayfalar: Abbas Halim Paşa Atatürk’e İnanmıştı-Neşredilmemiş Mektupları” (1959), Tarih Coğrafya Dünyası, 1/1, 44-45. Ankara

Bleda, Mithat Şükrü (1979), İmparatorluğun Çöküşü, Istanbul.

Bostan, M. Hanefi (1992), Said Halim Paşa, Istanbul.

Bülbül, Kudret (2006), Said Halim Paşa, Ankara: Kadim.

Danişmend, İsmail Hami (1972), İzahlı Osmanlı Tarihi Kronolojisi, Istanbul.

Düzdağ, M. Ertuğrul (1991), Said Halim Paşa-Buhranlarımız ve Son Eserleri. Istanbul.

Ekim 1921)”, yay: F. Tevetoğlu, Belgeler, 12 (16), p. 113-130.

Eyicil, Ahmet (2004), İttihad ve Terakki Liderlerinden Doktor Nâzım Bey (1872-1926).

Gazigiray, Alper (1982), Ermeni Terörünün Kaynakları, Istanbul.

İnal, İbnülemin Mahmut Kemal (1982), Son Sadrazamlar, 4th book, 3rd press, Istanbul.

Kutay, Cemal (t.y.), Türkiye İstiklâl ve Hürriyet Mücadeleleri Tarihi, (b.17), Istanbul.

Okyar, Ali Fethi (1988), “Ali Fethi Okyar’ın Günlük Hatıraları (30 April 1921-16

Şıracıyan, Arşavir (1997), Bir Ermeni Teröristin İtirafları, Istanbul.

Şimşir, Bilal (1976), Malta Sürgünleri, Istanbul.

Talat Paşa (1983), Talat Paşa’nın Gurbet Hatıraları, prep. C. Kutay, b. 2-3, Istanbul.

Read The Full Post by Clicking Here Read Full Post !

484) Notes of Captain Niles and Mr Sutherland taken on trips of investigation Jul-Aug 1919





Notes of Captain Niles and Mr Sutherland taken on trips of investigation Jul-Aug 1919


Documents Kindly Provided by TruckTurkey






Read The Full Post by Clicking Here Read Full Post !

483) Yurukel: Allegations Of Armenian Genocide Are Part Of A New Operation Against Turkey

VIENNA - ''Allegations of Armenian genocide are part of a new operation of the United States and the other western states against Turkey,'' affirmed Turkish researcher Sefa Yurukel on Thursday. . . .
Speaking at a conference organized by the Austria-Turkey Union of Islam on ''Crimes against Humanity in the History'', Yurukel said, ''such a genocide against Armenians have never taken place in the history. During the Ottoman era, Armenians were relocated due to security reasons. According to a convention signed by the United Nations in 1948, only a planned action can be described as genocide. Armenians were not exposed to such a planned action. Even Armenian sources confessed it saying that they failed to prove that the relocation was a planned action.''

Yurukel claimed that the United States, Russia, the People's Republic of China, Britain and France, the permanent members of the UN Security Council, were the countries which committed genocide.

''Under the UN convention, what Israel is currently doing in Palestine is a genocide. What the United States is doing in Iraq is a genocide. France committed genocide during the war in Algeria. Also, France and Belgium committed genocide in Rwanda and Burundi. But no one can accuse those countries of genocide since they are permanent members of the UN Security Council,'' he said.

Yurukel claimed that the United States and the western countries wanted to make use of Turkey against Iraq, adding, ''therefore, they put pressure on Turkey by using the allegations of Armenian genocide. We cannot resist their attack since we do not know how to prepare reports. There are nearly 7.5 million Turkish people living abroad. We should organize them to create a sound lobby.''


Published: 12/15/2005
The Anatolia Times


Read The Full Post by Clicking Here Read Full Post !

482) The Turks haven't learned the British way of denying past atrocities

It is not illegal to discuss the millions who were killed under our empire. So why do so few people know about them? . . .
In reading reports of the trial of the Turkish novelist Orhan Pamuk, you are struck by two things. The first, of course, is the anachronistic brutality of the country's laws. Mr Pamuk, like scores of other writers and journalists, is being prosecuted for "denigrating Turkishness", which means that he dared to mention the Armenian genocide in the first world war and the killing of the Kurds in the past decade. The second is its staggering, blithering stupidity. If there is one course of action that could be calculated to turn these massacres into live issues, it is the trial of the country's foremost novelist for mentioning them.


As it prepares for accession, the Turkish government will discover that the other members of the EU have found a more effective means of suppression. Without legal coercion, without the use of baying mobs to drive writers from their homes, we have developed an almost infinite capacity to forget our own atrocities.

Atrocities? Which atrocities? When a Turkish writer uses that word, everyone in Turkey knows what he is talking about, even if they deny it vehemently. But most British people will stare at you blankly. So let me give you two examples, both of which are as well documented as the Armenian genocide.

In his book Late Victorian Holocausts, published in 2001, Mike Davis tells the story of famines that killed between 12 and 29 million Indians. These people were, he demonstrates, murdered by British state policy. When an El Niño drought destituted the farmers of the Deccan plateau in 1876 there was a net surplus of rice and wheat in India. But the viceroy, Lord Lytton, insisted that nothing should prevent its export to England. In 1877 and 1878, at the height of the famine, grain merchants exported a record 6.4m hundredweight of wheat. As the peasants began to starve, officials were ordered "to discourage relief works in every possible way". The Anti-Charitable Contributions Act of 1877 prohibited "at the pain of imprisonment private relief donations that potentially interfered with the market fixing of grain prices". The only relief permitted in most districts was hard labour, from which anyone in an advanced state of starvation was turned away. In the labour camps, the workers were given less food than inmates of Buchenwald. In 1877, monthly mortality in the camps equated to an annual death rate of 94%.

As millions died, the imperial government launched "a militarised campaign to collect the tax arrears accumulated during the drought". The money, which ruined those who might otherwise have survived the famine, was used by Lytton to fund his war in Afghanistan. Even in places that had produced a crop surplus, the government's export policies, like Stalin's in Ukraine, manufactured hunger. In the north-western provinces, Oud and the Punjab, which had brought in record harvests in the preceeding three years, at least 1.25m died.

Three recent books - Britain's Gulag by Caroline Elkins, Histories of the Hanged by David Anderson, and Web of Deceit by Mark Curtis - show how white settlers and British troops suppressed the Mau Mau revolt in Kenya in the 1950s. Thrown off their best land and deprived of political rights, the Kikuyu started to organise - some of them violently - against colonial rule. The British responded by driving up to 320,000 of them into concentration camps. Most of the remainder - more than a million - were held in "enclosed villages". Prisoners were questioned with the help of "slicing off ears, boring holes in eardrums, flogging until death, pouring paraffin over suspects who were then set alight, and burning eardrums with lit cigarettes". British soldiers used a "metal castrating instrument" to cut off testicles and fingers. "By the time I cut his balls off," one settler boasted, "he had no ears, and his eyeball, the right one, I think, was hanging out of its socket." The soldiers were told they could shoot anyone they liked "provided they were black". Elkins's evidence suggests that more than 100,000 Kikuyu were either killed or died of disease and starvation in the camps. David Anderson documents the hanging of 1,090 suspected rebels: far more than the French executed in Algeria. Thousands more were summarily executed by soldiers, who claimed they had "failed to halt" when challenged.

These are just two examples of at least 20 such atrocities overseen and organised by the British government or British colonial settlers; they include, for example, the Tasmanian genocide, the use of collective punishment in Malaya, the bombing of villages in Oman, the dirty war in North Yemen, the evacuation of Diego Garcia. Some of them might trigger a vague, brainstem memory in a few thousand readers, but most people would have no idea what I'm talking about. Max Hastings, on the opposite page, laments our "relative lack of interest" in Stalin and Mao's crimes. But at least we are aware that they happened.

In the Express we can read the historian Andrew Roberts arguing that for "the vast majority of its half-millennium-long history, the British empire was an exemplary force for good ... the British gave up their empire largely without bloodshed, after having tried to educate their successor governments in the ways of democracy and representative institutions" (presumably by locking up their future leaders). In the Sunday Telegraph, he insists that "the British empire delivered astonishing growth rates, at least in those places fortunate enough to be coloured pink on the globe". (Compare this to Mike Davis's central finding, that "there was no increase in India's per capita income from 1757 to 1947", or to Prasannan Parthasarathi's demonstration that "South Indian labourers had higher earnings than their British counterparts in the 18th century and lived lives of greater financial security.") In the Daily Telegraph, John Keegan asserts that "the empire became in its last years highly benevolent and moralistic". The Victorians "set out to bring civilisation and good government to their colonies and to leave when they were no longer welcome. In almost every country, once coloured red on the map, they stuck to their resolve".

There is one, rightly sacred Holocaust in European history. All the others can be denied, ignored, or belittled. As Mark Curtis points out, the dominant system of thought in Britain "promotes one key concept that underpins everything else - the idea of Britain's basic benevolence ... Criticism of foreign policies is certainly possible, and normal, but within narrow limits which show 'exceptions' to, or 'mistakes' in, promoting the rule of basic benevolence". This idea, I fear, is the true "sense of British cultural identity" whose alleged loss Max laments today. No judge or censor is required to enforce it. The men who own the papers simply commission the stories they want to read.

Turkey's accession to the European Union, now jeopardised by the trial of Orhan Pamuk, requires not that it comes to terms with its atrocities; only that it permits its writers to rage impotently against them. If the government wants the genocide of the Armenians to be forgotten, it should drop its censorship laws and let people say what they want. It needs only allow Richard Desmond and the Barclay brothers to buy up the country's newspapers, and the past will never trouble it again.

www.monbiot.com
George Monbiot
December 27, 2005
The Guardian

Read The Full Post by Clicking Here Read Full Post !

28.12.05

481) If Armenians say “Yes”, Fanatic Diaspora will Empower

The Armenian Society heads towards voting ballots in order to vote for the Constitutional change package, which will determine the power balance between the Parliament and the President. . . .
Ankara is concerned about the package, covering 107 of the 119 articles in the Armenian Constitution. The reform package enables the fanatic Armenian Diaspora, which has a negative attitude towards Turkey, to have double citizenships. The diplomatic sources, which say Diaspora is influential on Armenia, said: “If these changes take place, the Armenian Diaspora will increase its influence on Armenian policy even more by gaining voting rights also. This will reflect a negative effect on Ankara-Yerevan relations.” The latest public opinion polls show slightly more than half of the registered voters will vote and about 45 percent of them will say “Yes” to the package. However, it is still not clear whether the reform package will or will not be accepted.

Armenian President Robert Kocharian called the citizens to say “Yes” for the constitution change; however, the opposition, which thinks the parliament is misused by Kocharian, calls the citizens to say “No” and to boycott the referendum. Kocharian defines the opposition’s call for boycott as incomprehensible. Kocharian talked to the state TV prior to the referendum and expressed: “People urging to boycott the referendum have in their time boycotted the Karabagh war. Today these people live rather well and moreover, they are going to boycott the future of our country and our children. I will vote for the reforms and I will do it openly.” Kocharian defended the opposition does not have any solid arguments to support their criticisms and added: “Their propagandas will not have a trace in history.” In order for the reforms to be accepted at least half of the participants have to vote yes and this rate should be equal to at least one third of 2.4 million registered voters. The package, which predicts important changes in the constitution accepted in 1995, had been accepted in the parliament with 89 votes against zero. The Constitutional reform had been presented to referendum in 2003 once more but, it was not accepted then. Speaker of the Armenian Parliament Tigran Torosian, also a supporter of the referendum, said the new constitution will make the parliament the most powerful institution in the country.


Opposition Opposes Immunity and Right to Dissolve


The opposition, however, refuses to approve the reforms. Eighteen parties united against the idea of making constitutional amendments. Those opposing the reforms package are split into two groups of “no” voters and “boycotters”. Aram Sarkisyan, the Respublika leader and Viktor Dallakyan, the leader of Justice Bloc, object to the idea of giving the president the right to dissolve the parliament if the president does not find the legislation term of two months approvable. Granting the president immunity valid during his term of service as well as after his resignation as the president of Armenia was strongly objected by the opposition. According to them, the idea of rejecting the package of constitutional reforms provides opposition parties an opportunity to make their position certain and to overthrow the Kocharian administration. Former Prime Minister Aram Sarkisyan is one of those who object to the constitutional amendments. Sarkisyan accuses the authorities of distorting referendum results, warning against the possibility of such plots leading to a surprise mutiny that might result in destroying the governmental structure. At any rate, “we will be living in a new Armenia,” said Sarkisyan. Raffi Hovannisan, another opposition leader, thinks the referendum is “illegal”.


‘Orange Revolution Far Away from Yerevan’


Political observers, on the other hand, regard the positive outcome of the referendum as being important for the political advancement of Armenia. The opposition parties may receive enough support from the public, asserted the experts, not crediting the possibility of a revolution of the kind that was experienced in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan. The opposition does not have the resources to have a revolution and there is no basis for the eruption of a possible rebellion, say the experts. Most of the people are confused about the constitutional amendments; however, they will vote for these amendments anyway partly because European experts have worked out such amendments. Some people believe the new constitution will not cause a worse situation than the current one. “It is not important what the legislations include, but it is important how these legislations are put into effect,” say the people discontent with the current situation. The European Council had a direct “intervention” in the process of constitutional amendments to express its support for the reforms.

The referendum witnessed many colorful campaigns in which many propaganda tools were used such as media, banners, short messages (SMS) and others. While those in favor of changes used colorful banners, the opposition preferred using white banners.

Historical voting in Armenia

The constitutional amendments, which have been presented to voting today with a critical referendum, call for strict separation of judicial, legislative and executive bodies. The reform package envisaging the elimination of bans, which hinder the Armenian Diaspora to have dual citizenship, restricts the power of the president, increases the influence/power of the parliament and cabinet. The reform package entitles the parliament the right to appoint an ombudsman for human rights and to go for a vote of confidence in the parliament. The amendments foreseeing strengthening of human rights, pave the way for the citizens to apply to the Constitutional Court. Armenia witnessed many colorful scenes before the referendum.

‘Kocharian will benefit from it’

Armenian opposition objects the reform packages’ giving the authority to the president to dissolve the parliament if it does not support the government-supported laws for two months. In addition to this, it is noted giving a lifetime immunity right to the president will increase Kocharian’s power.

Zaman.com
27 Nov. 2005


Read The Full Post by Clicking Here Read Full Post !

480) Armenian Press in Turkey

- “Lraper” Ermeni Patrikli�i Kilise Bülteni
�arapnel Sok No 20-22 Kumkap�
Tel : (0212) 5170970, (0212) 5170971

- “�o�agat” Dergisi - Türkiye Ermenileri Patrikli�i
�arapnel Sok No 20-22 Kumkap�
Tel : (0212) 5170970, (0212) 5170971 . . .
- “Jamanak” Daily Paper
�stiklal Cad Narmanl� Yurdu No 390, P K 22 Beyo�lu
Tel : (0212) 2435639, Fax : (0212) 2433196

- “Nor Marmara” Daily Paper
Solakzade Sok No 5, P K 507 Beyo�lu
Tel : (0212) 2444736, (0212) 2491989, Fax : (0212) 2498165

- “Agos” Weekly Paper
Halaskargazi Cad Sebat Ap 192/3, Daire 6 80220 Pangalt�
Tel : (0212) 2962364, (0212) 2315694, (0212) 2195082, Fax : (0212) 2475519

- “Surp P�rgiç” Hastane Dergisi (Hospital Magazine)
Surp P�rgiç Ermeni Hastanesi, 34780 Yedikule
Tel : (0212) 5825050

- “Nor San” Sanat Dergisi - Pangalt� Lisesinden Yeti�enler Derne�i
�nci Pasaj� 3/5, 80220 �i�li
Tel : (0212) 2406283

- “Jbid” Çocuk Dergisi
Zafer Sokak No 11-13/2, 80220 �i�li
Tel : (0212) 2469415

- “Lusadu” Okul Dergisi - Getronagan Lisesi Yay�n Temsil Kolu
Getronagan Lisesi, Kemeralt� Sak�zc�lar Sok No 19, 80030 Karaköy
Tel : (0212) 2440503

- “Punç” Ö�renci Dergisi - Surp Haç Lisesi Kültür ve Edebiyat Kolu
Surp Haç Lisesi Ekmekçiba�� Sok No 3, Üsküdar
Tel : (0216) 3330307

- “Me�u” Dergisi - Pangalt� Lisesinden Yeti�enler Derne�i
�nci Pasaj� 3/5, 80220 �i�li- �stanbul
Tel : (0212) 2406283

- “Talarkyu�” Ye�ilköy Kilisesi Dergisi
�nci Çiçe�i Sok No 4, 34800 Ye�ilköy
Tel : (0212) 5730243



Copyright © 2005 Journal of Turkish Weekly http://www.turkishweekly.net/

Read The Full Post by Clicking Here Read Full Post !

479) U.S. Sticks To Cautious Line On Armenian Referendum

A senior State Department official stood by U.S. criticism of the Armenian authorities’ handling of the November 27 constitutional referendum but stopped short of openly questioning their commitment to democracy on Wednesday.

In an exclusive interview with RFE/RL, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia Matthew Bryza reiterated the U.S. view that constitutional amendments drafted by President Robert Kocharian will facilitate the democratization of Armenia’s political system. But he reserved judgment on whether the highly controversial way in which they were enacted has actually made the country more democratic, highlighting Washington’s cautious line on the Armenian leadership. . . .
He also insisted that recent months’ progress in the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process does not make the administration of President George W. Bush disinterested in regime change in Baku and Yerevan.

“It’s too early to judge whether or not democracy has moved forward,” Bryza said. “Let’s see the extent to which these [constitutional] provisions are implemented as well as the extent to which the Armenian government works with its own political parties, civil society to strengthen electoral and referendum procedures.”

The Bush administration’s official reaction to the Armenian authorities’ handling of the referendum was expressed in a written statement by the State Department’s Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs last week. Citing the findings of Council of Europe observers, the statement called into question the official results that showed an unusually high voter turnout and a crushing “yes” vote.

Bryza, the number two figure at the Bureau, repeated U.S. calls for an official investigation into serious fraud reported by the observers, “particularly with regard to whether or not the threshold was met for the validation” of the constitutional reform. “It’s time for the government of Armenia to investigate the reports of serious abuse and fraud,” he said. “If the government of Armenia investigates and punishes those who are guilty of fraud, you could say this is a step forward for the democratic process. But we don’t know what’s going to happen.”

The European Union, another active backer of Kocharian constitutional reform, has expressed concern about “reports of ballot stuffing and manipulation of the turnout figures.” “A failure to prevent activities such as this calls into question Armenia's commitment to transparency and democracy,” the EU said in a statement circulated by the British embassy in Yerevan last week.

But Bryza, who was due to visit Armenia this week but cancelled the trip due to heavy fog that has effectively shut down its main international airport, avoided challenging the Kocharian administration’s democratic credentials. “It’s premature to judge whether or not referendum experience reflected the government’s commitment or lack thereof to democracy,” he said.

“There are provisions that are designed to strengthen democracy and were opposed, in many cases, by the beneficiaries of those provisions. It’s a very complicated mix,” he added in a thinly veiled rebuke to Armenian opposition parties and civic groups that rejected the amendments as irrelevant and insufficient.

The U.S. official also would not speculate on whether or not the authorities’ conduct of the referendum bodes ill for the freedom and fairness of the next Armenian parliamentary and presidential elections due in 2007 and 2008 respectively. “I’m not sure that we can ever predict the future with accuracy,” he said. “What we can say is that it is time for the governments of the United States and Armenia, civil society and all the political parties of Armenia to take stock of what happened.”

The State Department said in its statement that it is “working closely” with the Armenian government to help ensure that the 2007 and 2008 elections are democratic. But the local opposition groups say the referendum showed that clean polls will be impossible in Armenia as long as Kocharian and his governing coalition remain in power. They maintain that regime change is therefore a necessary condition for democratization.

The Bush administration, however, clearly wants Kocharian and his loyal parliament to be able to complete their constitutionally defined terms in office, despite its strong endorsement of the revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine. Bryza underlined this policy by calling for a “dialogue” between the rival political camps and even suggesting that they agree, if necessary, on additional amendments to the Armenian constitution.

Bryza pointed out at the same time that the Armenian leadership has to press on with real political reform if it is to achieve a “full-scale” relationship with the United States. “To have a full-scale partnership with our government any country needs to be working with us on more than simply shared interests,” he said. “A real partnership requires progress on shared values of democracy and expanding freedom and economic reform. I can only assume that the Armenian government seeks that sort of relationship and partnership with the United States.”

Bryza further dismissed the argument that the United States will not seek to undercut Kocharian and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliev, who also held an allegedly fraudulent vote last month, now that they seem close to resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. “[Progress in the peace process] does not weaken our resolve to promote democracy because we believe that we can not have long-term security or stable situation in the Caucasus if democratic reform isn’t moving forward,” he said.

Source:BakuToday

Copyright © 2005 Journal of Turkish Weekly http://www.turkishweekly.net/

Read The Full Post by Clicking Here Read Full Post !

478) Stone: Armenian Diaspora Uses Fake Documents

© This content Mirrored From  http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com
ANKARA (JTW) - The Gazi Universty organized an Armenian Conference in Ankara. Historian Norman Stone argued that the Armenian Diaspora rewrite the past by using fake documents.

Prof. Dr. Norman Stone: “Diaspora makes the past romantic and makes everything more difficult. It rewrites the history on fake documents, yet the serious scientists are aware of the reality.” . .
Prof. Dr. Hikmet Ozdemir: “There are reasons of the relocation (tehcir) campaign. The Ottomans did not decide once with no reason to force the Armenians to immigrate. The reasons were the Armenian riots and the Armenian collaboration with the enemies.”

Prof. Dr. Yusuf Halacoglu: “Till now no one applied to the science. The genocide is to make such a great pressure on a nation (Turkish nation)”

Prof. Dr. Baskin Oran: “The Armenian Diaspora has made the Armenian issue incurable.”

Copyright © 2005 Journal of Turkish Weekly http://www.turkishweekly.net/

Read The Full Post by Clicking Here Read Full Post !

477) France, Armenians and Re-Writing History


* Will France apologize to Algeria for crimes it committed there?
* French Historians Protest Against "Genocide" Recognition
* French Historians 'Jointly' Ask Annulment of Armenian Genocide Law .
* France, Armenians and Re-Writing History...

Read The Full Post by Clicking Here Read Full Post !

25.12.05

476) Diasporas And The State: From Victims To Challengers, Robin Cohen

The notion of ‘diaspora’, used first in the classical world, has acquired renewed importance in the late twentieth century. Once the term applied principally to Jews and less commonly to Greeks, Armenians and Africans. Now at least thirty ethnic groups declare that they are a diaspora, or are so deemed by others. Why these sudden proclamations? Frightened by the extent of international migration and their inability to construct a stable, pluralist, social order many states have turned away from the idea of assimilating or integrating their ethnic minorities. For their part, minorities no longer desire to abandon their pasts. Many retain or have acquired dual citizenship, while the consequences of globalisation have meant that ties with a homeland can be preserved or even reinvented. How have diasporas changed? What consequences arise for the nation-state? * . .






.

Read The Full Post by Clicking Here Read Full Post !

475) Diasporas and Homeland Conflict, Terrence Lyons

Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University, Presented to the DC Area Workshop on Contentious Politics, March 2004

[This paper is the start of a new project. All comments are most welcome.] Diaspora groups link processes of globalization to conflicts over identity and territory. Globalization has increased cross-border migration and decreased communication and travel costs, thereby making it easier for migrants to build and sustain links between the original homeland and current place of residence. Those forced across borders by war commonly have a specific set of traumatic memories and create specific types of “conflict-generated diasporas” that sustain and sometimes amplify their strong sense of symbolic attachment to the homeland. They build new identities that stress their links to the homeland and often profess an intention to return, once their homeland is “free.” . . . . .

Read The Full Post by Clicking Here Read Full Post !

474) II: Armenian Mythomania - Illustrated Expose : Armenian Extremism: Its Causes and Historical Context : Text Only Version

Part II . .

Jews in the Ottoman Empire
Report sent to London by her Majesty's Ambassador in Istanbul:

No. 350
Sir A. H. Layard to the Marquis of Salisbury,

No. 148

Constantinople, April 13, 1880 (received April 23).

My Lord,
I have the honor to transmit herewith to your Lordship a Report on the Vilayet of Angora (Ankara) by Mr. Vice-Consul Gatheral which I have received from Mr. Consul-General Wilson, who is sending it to me suggests that it should be printed. I have, &c. (Signed) A. H. Layard

F. O. 424/106, p. 306, No. 151 Turkey No. 23 (1880), p.121, No. 72
Inclosure in No. 350

Report on the Population, Industries, Trade, Commerce, Agriculture, Public Works, Land Tenure, and Government of City and Province of Angora, Anatolia, by Vice-Consul Gatheral. Extract.

The population of this city and province is a small one, taking into consideration its wide extent and general fertility, and for five years past that population has been visibly diminishing, owing to the emigration of considerable numbers during the famine of 1873-74, the drain on the male Muslim population owing to the war of 1877-78, and the special products of the province having for three years in succession proved unremunerative to the Christians engaged in its commerce many of them have quitted the province for Constantinople or other parts of Anatolia. A Turkish census takes no note of females or male children under fifteen years of age, returning only the total of males liable to military service amongst Muslims, and amongst Christians those from whom the "military service exemption tax" is exigible.

The last enumeration was in 1877, and the total then returned was 449.241; this multiplied by three, according to the Redhouse rule, gives a total of 1.347.723 souls. These are divided into the follow ing sects or communities: Muslims, Gregorian or Orthodox Armenians, Catholic Armenians, Protestant Armenians, Greeks, Jews and Gipsies. The numbers of each community are stated in the same Return as follows:

Males liable to military service Muslims. 393.074
Total population (Muslims) 1.179.222
Males paying military service exemption tax - Christians -Gregorian Armenians 3.445
Roman Catholic Armenians 3.985
Protestant Armenians 660
Jews 280
Gipsies 262
Total population other than Muslims 168.501
Total of males 449.241
Total population 1.347.723



Those different races have origins as varied as their creeds. The Muslims are for the most part the descendants of the Turkish soldiery who conquered the province from the Byzantine Empire, A.D. 1344-45, under Sultan Murad I, then reigning at Broussa (today Bursa). The Armenians are the result of an emigration from the eastward during the fifteenth century; they have been subdivided into Roman Catholic and Protestant in recent times; the leading Roman Catholic families were exiles from Constantinople in 1830, during the reign of Sultan Mahmud II; their wealth, intelligence, and commercial relations with Europe added greatly to the prosperity of the city, later an energetic Jesuit propaganda, directed from Rome, had considerable success, but in later years they have lost their ascendency, having split up into old and new Catholics as in Europe; the schism officially and outwardly has been healed, but the rancorous feeling towards each other remains, and they seem to have no further success in making converts. The Protestants are the result of American missionary effort during the last twenty-eight years. Though meanwhile small in numbers, they are as a community better educated, more truthful and honest, than any of the other Christian sects, and are gaining rapidly in numbers and influence. The Orthodox or Gregorian Armenians are, as a community, ignorant, superstitious, and poverty-stricken, but count more adherents than either of the later sects. The small Jewish community, being mostly blonde and speaking a bastard Spanish, are evidently of Iberian origin; whilst the origin of the few nomad gipsy tribes who come and go is as great a mystery in Anatolia as in Europe.

(The rest of the letter deals with details of the province of Ankara which, although interesting, are less relevant to the subject matter of this book.) "The small Jewish community, being mostly blonde and speaking a bastard Spanish, are evidently of Iberian origin ..." reports the British Vice-Consul, Gatheral, to his ambassador in Istanbul. The ambassador rushed these precise notes concerning the Vilayet of Angora (Ankara) on to his Foreign Minister in London. The blond-haired Jewish community with its "bastard Spanish" was indeed of Iberian origin. The Catholic kings had not only cracked down radically on the Arabs and all other Muslims on the Iberian Peninsula, they had also envisaged a final solution for the Jews of the Christian kingdom. Since 1412, the Jews had been forced to wear degrading markings on their clothes. In 1480, the Inquisition started persecuting them with deadly hostility, and finally the Grand Inquisitor carried out the expropriation and expulsion of 300,000 Jews. Some fled to Morocco, but many more found refuge in the Ottoman Empire. The Sultan even sent his own ship to them, in order to speed up the rescue operation. The Turkish government showed similar generosity towards the Jewish refugees from Germany and the countries occupied by Hitler. Asylum was granted to tens of thousands.

It was not only the Ottomans who offered protection to the Jews (when they were being threatened by the Catholic kings of Spain). Kemal Atatürk's Turkey also provided asylum for tens of thousands of Jewish refugees in the Hitler era. In spite of massive threats and attempts at intervention, Turkey never turned over a single Jewish refugee.

The Greek Orthodox - Patriarchate
Before the conquest of Constantinople by Fatih Sultan Mehmed (Mehmed The Conqueror) in the year 1453, the sphere of influence of the Greek Orthodox patriarchs had shrunk to the point where it was limited to the city of Constantinople. That changed abruptly when Constantinople (Istanbul) became the capital of the Ottoman Empire on the 29th of May, 1453. While it is true that the Patriarch had to move out of the church of Hagia Sophia (it was turned into a mosque), the power of the Greek Orthodox patriarchs was greater under the Sultans than it had ever been under the Byzantine emperors. The Greek Orthodox patriarch ruled like a national king over all the Greek Orthodox citizens of the Ottoman Empire.

The Greeks of the "Phanar", the district of Istanbul in which the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate is still located today, were among the most respected, wealthy, and influential citizens of the Ottoman Empire, as were the equally capable Armenians. The situation took a tragic turn centuries later when the Kingdom of Greece, and in particular the Venizelos government, tried to realize the dream of a "Great Greek Empire" after World War I. In May, 1919, the Greeks occupied Izmir (Smyrna) and pushed ahead toward central Anatolia with their invading troops. Their hope was to score an easy victory over the disintegrating Ottoman Empire.

The resistance of the Turks led by Kemal Atatürk and ‹smet ‹nönü, however, put an end to the high-flying plans of the Greeks in 1922. The invading army was forced to withdraw from Asia Minor in disgrace. Before their retreat, they set fire to Izmir (Smyrna), so that the Turks would be left with nothing but "scorched earth". The Armenians of Izmir, who had not been relocated in 1915, repaid the Turks very poorly for their tolerance . . . After the collapse of the Greek offensive, the two sides agree upon an exchange. The Greeks in Asia Minor moved to Greece, while the Turks living in Greece moved to Anatolia and Thrace. This exchange naturally weakened the position of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Istanbul. After the overthrow of the Greek military junta in 1974, many more Greeks left Istanbul, so that today the importance of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate is greatly reduced (solely because of the inconsiderate expansionist policy of Athens), although the reputations of individuals like Patriarch Athenagoras and Patriarch Demetrios remain strong in spite of daily politics and outside influences.

The Armenian Orthodox Patriarchate

The Ottoman Sultan-Caliphs lovingly called them their "most loyal subjects". Under the rule of the Seljuks and the Ottomans, from the eleventh to the nineteenth century, the Armenians enjoyed their happiest time, their golden age.

Today, the Armenians are still Turkey's largest minority, and they are still highly respected as businessmen, artists, engineers, doctors, traders, and craftsmen. They also enjoy the same rights and have the same responsibilities as all other Turkish citizens, regardless of national origin. The Armenian Question was created by the Russian dictate of San Stefano in 1878. Before that time, the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire was made up of four very distinct groups. In Istanbul and Izmir lived the influential Amiras, who were prosperous and highly educated Armenians. Anatolia was home to the Kavaragan. These were wellto-do, provincial craftsmen and traders, whose influence could be felt in the cities as well. The Armenian peasants had largely the same way of life as their Islamic counterparts. Last but not least were the mountain-dwellers, who had special rights. Even within the autonomy of the Armenian millet, they enjoyed special rights, one could even call it semi-independence. As long as it was possible, the central Ottoman government left the Armenians alone. Unfortunately, there were a few Armenian revolutionaries and Protestant zealots whose nationalistic fervor knew no bounds. These people used all available means of demagoguery to stir up unrest in the semi-independent rural communities. The Armenian uprising in Zeitun is an example of what resulted. Every national / religious community (in Turkish "millet") within the Ottoman Empire enjoyed extensive autonomy and took care of its own administration.

The Armenian Orthodox patriarch of Istanbul ruled over all Christians who did not belong to the Greek Orthodox Church. Aside from the Armenian Gregorians themselves, these included the Monophysitic churches of Asia Minor and Africa, such as the Jacobites and the Syrians, as well as the Copts in Egypt.

In those days, gypsies were believed to come from Egypt and were called "Copti". Therefore, all the gypsies of the Ottoman Empire were also subject to the rule of the Armenian patriarch of Istanbul in matters of civil law. Another religious group under Armenian Orthodox rule was the Bogomils of the Balkans and their founding fathers, the Paulicians. They still survived in small communities in eastern Anatolia and held Manichean beliefs. The history of the historical province of Armenia and the many peoples who have lived there begins under the banner of the fight between East and West for world supremacy. The Haik, an Indo-European people, probably from the Balkans or Thrace, migrated to the historical province of Armenia in the sixth century B.C. At that time, the Urartian kingdom was collapsing under the blows of the Scythians.

The newly-arrived Indo-European Haik mixed with the Urartians to some extent. The Asian language of the Urartians was an agglutinative language like Turkish. It had a certain influence on the Indo-European language of the Armenians, as did the superior culture of the Urartians. While their immigration to eastern Anatolia was still going on, the Haik (Armenians) fell under Median rule, and in the year 550 the emperor Kyros took possession of the ancient lands of the Urartians along with the newly arrived Haik. The first mention of the Armenians is to be found in the inscription of Behistun in connection with the triumphant reports of the victories of Darius (486 B.C.) At that time, the Armenians were already Persian subjects.

In the fourth century before Christ, Armenia (with all its races, tribes, and people of mixed blood) was under the rule of the Achaemids and later, that of the Seleucids.

When the Parthians took over, the Armenian prince Tigranes became a hostage in the Parthian court. Tigranes II. (95-55 B.C.) succeeded in freeing Armenia from the Parthians and creating an independent Armenian nation. His capital was Tigranakert (now called Silvan, southwest of Lake Van). Tigranes II.

married the daughter of the king of Pontus, Mithridates VI. Eupator, and made the disastrous mistake of joining Mithridates in a revolt against Rome.

In 69 B.C., the Roman general Lucullus defeated the Armenian ruler Tigranes II., and the short-lived dream of Armenian independence was over. For the Haik to refer nowadays on occasion to that short period of real Armenian rule in eastern Anatolia and for Armenian terrorists to base their territorial demands on that is comparable to Italian mafiosi in the United

Patriarch Snork Kalutsyan, spiritual leader of the Armenians of Turkey. In the Ottoman Empire, the patriarch's power was that of a "national king". All Monophysitic Christians of the Empire - and all gypsies -were subject to his rule.

When the Armenian king Tigranes refused to hand over his megalomaniac father-in-law, Mithridates, ruler of Pontos, to the Roman generals, Lucullus attacked "Tigranes City".

Tigranes' armored lancers were alone more numerous than Lucullus' entire force, which the Armenians scorned, saying it was "too large for a legation but too small for an army". The battle lasted just one day (October 9, 69 A. D.), and the Romans destroyed the army of Tigranes, which had been twenty times stronger. According to the Roman military report there were virtually no Romans killed at all, only Armenians. Tigranes managed to escape unre cognized and met up again with his father-inlaw, Mithridates, who was later killed by his own people. The subject peoples deserted the tyrant Tigranes and paid homage to the victors, Lucullus and Pompeius.


States wishing to be the successors of the Romans (or better of Lucullus or Trajan) and taking control of eastern Anatolia as the heirs of the victors of Tigranakert . . . The French could demand vast portions of North America over which they once ruled. And the examples go on ad infinitum. If every group of people claimed all the lands over which they ruled at some point in their history, then the entire world would have to be evacuated and resettled, and there would be constant warfare. There were several eventful centuries during which dominance in eastern Anatolia belonged sometimes to the Romans (Trajan, Nero, Hadrian, Diocletian) and sometimes to the Persian Sassanids. At the end of this period, the emperor Diocletian named Tiridates III. King of Armenia. Gregory Parthev, a Parthian, preached Christianity. The most recent findings indicate that Armenia did not adopt Christianity until after the conversion of the emper or Constantine in 313 A.D. The Armenian conversion most likely occured in 314 at the behest of King Trdat (Tiridates). The missionizing of Armenia probably began in Edessa (present-day Urfa). It has been proven that Christian communities existed as early as the second century. The great converter was Gregory Parthev Lusarevic, the Illuminator. He was not a Haik, but rather an Armenian in the true sense of the word, an inhabitant of the province of Armenia. He was, however, of Parthian origin.

Gregory lived in Roman Caesarea (Kayseri) as a refugee from the Persians. It was there that he became a Christian. At first, King Tiridates persecuted Gregory, but then he himself became a Christian, and with him, gradually, the people of Armenia. Christianity quickly took hold throughout the Roman Empire, in Georgia as well as in Caucasian Albania and in Armenia. This deeply troubled the Persians. Julian the Apostate, who might have been able to handle the Persians, died unexpectedly. His successor, Jovian, relinquished the Caucasus and

Castle and mosque of the Semiramis near Van. From the art collection of the bibliographical institute in Hildshausen, West Germany.

A. D. MDCCCXXXXIX (1849).

When the church of Aghtamar was built in the tenth century, the Armenians of eastern Anatolia and their princes were subjects of the Abbaside Caliphs of Baghdad. The Caliphs were in turn at the mercy of the "Mamluks", who lived at the Caliphs' court and controlled art and culture (not just the military!). These Mamluks were Turkish and belonged to the administrative and military caste. They influenced both Seljuk and Armenian architecture with their classical round buildings.


Armenia to the Persians without a fight. After the death of Emperor Theodosius in 395, the Roman Empire was divided into an Eastern and a Western Empire. The Armenian princes, who suffered greatly under the intolerant, sometimes fanatically anti-Christian religious policies of the Sassanids tried in vain to obtain more freedom.

In the decisive battle of Avarayr in the year 451, the Armenian leader Vardan Mamikonean was defeated by the Persians. His pleas to the Byzantines for help were of no avail. 451 was a fateful year for the Armenians, it was also the year of the Fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalzedon (present-day Kad›köy, in Istanbul). Because of the tragic war situation, the Christians from beyond the Byzantine borders were unable to attend the Council. The imperial policy, which was also the official policy of the Byzantine clergy, won an unchallenged victory. The doctrine of the dual nature of Christ, divine and human, prevailed. The Monophysites did not recognize the decisions of the Council. The most important Monophysitic group was the Armenians, but also in this category were the Syrians, the Egyptian Copts, their neighbors to the South in Ethiopia, and the Indian church. One must also mention the Nestorians in Persia, who at that time were quite strong.

This conflict resulted in a feud between Byzantium and the Armenians - a feud which had grave consequences for both sides. The Byzantines watched disdainfully as the Armenians were weakened. They failed to recognize that they were losing a buffer against their Persian archenemies, as well as against the new invaders from the East. In 484, Byzantium was decisively weakened by Persians attacking from the East. When the emperor Justinian came to power in Byzantium a generation later, there was not a trace left of Armenian independence. Power was divided between Persians and Byzantines. The emperor Maurice even resettled a lot of Armenians in Thrace, which may well have been their original home. Following the struggle between Persians and Romans to gain the upper hand in Armenia, the Arabs

Recurring themes of Armenian art: the constant struggle with the Persians, which lasted from the days of the Armenian immigration to the battle near Caldiran in 1514, where the Ottomans drove the Persians out.

Illustration from Codex 189 of Lake Van: the Haik fighting the Persians in 451. Near Avarayr the Haik lost not only the battle but also the cream of their fighting nobility under Vartan Mamigonian. (Illustration from the sixteenth century from the canon of Saint Vartan and his companions.

Mechitaristenkloster, Vienna.) The same theme, the battle of Avarayr, seen through the eyes of the nineteenth century (Georg Drah, 1888): The Persian king, Yadzegert II, tried to force the Haik to return to Mazdaism in 451 (exactly at the time of the Council of Chalzedon). He did not succeed, but the Haik ended up in a schism due to their absence at Chalzedon. Mechitaristenkloster, Vienna.


and Byzantium shared power until Byzantium wiped out what little was left of Armenian autonomy in 1040. As late as 630 A.D., the emperor Heraclios had been hammering out plans for a Church union with the Monophysitic Armenians, but just ten years later, the Arabs relieved him of this concern by invading eastern Anatolia and breaking the Byzantines' hold on power. The occasional victories of the Byzantines (such as those under Emperor Justinian II., 685-695) only led to more brutal attempts to bring the Armenians into line with the official Greek Orthodox Church. In the end, the Byzantines and the Arabs divided up control of Armenia in much the same way as the Romans and Persians had done for eastern Anatolia and the adjoining Caucasus.

At his coronation as King of Armenia, Prince Ashkot received his insignia from both Arabs and Byzantines. Armenia blossomed as a semi-independent buffer state between Arabs and Byzantines and did not do too badly. The cleverness of the Armenian princes, who recognized the limits of their power and knew what was attainable, was always the best guarantee for the well-being of the Haik.

It was during this period that the magnificent buildings of Ani and the church on the island of Aghtamar in Lake Van were constructed. The supremacy of the Caliphs of Damascus and Baghdad was entirely bearable.

No Arab would ever have dreamed of harrassing the Armenians because of their Monophysitic beliefs. On the contrary, they gave the Armenians the job of supervising the holy sites of Jerusalem. Under the Bagratids, who were in turn under Byzantine and Arab rule, the Armenians achieved a blossoming of their culture. Ani was completed, and the church of Aghtamar became the thriving see of the Armenian Catholicoses.

Nevertheless, the Byzantines could not resist shortening the Armenians' leash more and more. New, unsettling reports kept coming in about new tribes out of the East who were advancing across Persia to the West.

But in stead of promoting and reinforcing the Armenian buffer state, the Byzantines forced the prince of Ani, Hovanes Smbat, to relinquish Ani fully and unconditionally. After his triumph in the Balkans, Emperor Basil II., the "Bulgar-slayer", turned to the Caucasus and Armenia, where he met with equally great success. His expansionist policies had their crowning glory in Armenia under his successor, the emperor Constantine IX. Constantine IX. Monomachus was a ruthless Orthodox zealot. He annexed "heretical" Ani and made it part of the Orthodox Byzantine Empire. The Armenian version reads, "King Gagik II. is forced to surrender the Kingdom in Constantinople." That was in 1045, another fateful year for the Armenians. Since 1045, there has never been an independent or semi-independent principality or kingdom in

The destruction of the semi-independent Armenian principalities, which had long served as buffer states between Byzantium and the Muslims and Persians of the East, was the work of the Greeks. They were not willing to tolerate the Monophysitic Armenians, whom they saw as inferior heretics, and they were constantly trying to convert them by force. It was the Mamie Seljuks and Ottomans who finally saved the Armenians from this fate.

Ani: the Church of St. Gregory of Tigran Honent. It is part of the unquestioned mythology of the Armenians that "the Turks" destroyed the capital of the Bagritid dynasty. The historical truth: Since at least 772 A. D., the one-time Urartian city had been under Arab control.

After the Byzantine invasion, the pillaging of the city by the Georgians and further weakening of the prinicipality, Hovhannes Smbat was forced to sign an agreement bequeathing his capital to the Byzantines. In 1041, Basil II (the "Bulgarslayer") was ready to cash this I. O. U. in. When the Armenians did not want to give their capital up, the Byzantine emperor Constantine Monomachus sent two armies to Ani. Together with the Arab princes of Dvin, they broke the Armenian resistance.

In 1045, the patriarch and the governor of Ani opened the gates of the city to the Byzantines, and with that the last remnants of Armenian inde pendence in eastern Anatolia vanished. The Seljuk leader Alp Arslan did not make it as far as Ani until 1065 - a full two decades later - and he did not fight against Armenians, but rather Byzantines, who at that time shared power in eastern Anatolia with the Arabs.


eastern Anatolia, the historical region of Armenia. There has been no trace of Armenian self-government or autonomy. It was Emperor Basil II., the Bulgar-slayer, and after him Emperor Constantine IX. Monomachus who wiped out every kind of Armenian political life in eastern Anatolia - no one else.

The Triumph of the Ottomans in Eastern Anatolia and Cilicia Armenian principalities in Cilicia, suffice it to say that at the time of the Ottoman takeover of power (1512, by Sultan Selim I.), there had not been an independent or semi-independent Armenian principality in Cilicia for 137 years. Sis was conquered by the Mamluks in 1375. The struggle for supremacy in eastern Anatolia and the adjacent regions in the south and south-west of the Ottoman realm ended on the 23rd of August, 1514 at the battle near Çald›ran. Here, Sultan Selim I. (1512-1520) dealt a crushing blow to the Persian Safavids, and with that the entire historical province of Armenia was brought under Ottoman control. At this time, it had already been nearly five centuries since an Armenian prince had held any kind of power here.

Almost exactly two years later, on August 24, 1516, Selim I. opened the way to Syria with his victory at the battle of Marc Dabik, not far from Aleppo. Selim's successor, Süleyman the Magnificent, went on to conquer Rhodes, Azerbaijan and the entire Caucasus, Mesopota-

The island of Aghtamar with its famous church of the Holy Cross. When the church was built in the tenth century, eastern Anatolia with its Armenian principalities was ruled by the Abbaside Caliphs of Baghdad. Before the Abbasides, eastern Anatolia and its inhabitants had belonged to the realm of the Ommiad Caliphs, who ruled from Damascus.

The battlefield of Çaldiran. On August 23, 1514, Sultan Selim I defeated the Persians on this site and finally brought eastern Anatolia under Ottoman control. The border that was agreed to at that time still stands today. On the same day two years later, Sultan Selim I brought southern Anatolia and Syria under his control. Immediately thereafter, Selim I made his triumphant entrance into Cairo, and the Sherif of Mecca recognized Selim I as the new Caliph.

Ottomans continued to be Caliphs until the new Turkish Republic abolished the Caliphate in 1924.


mia (which was not lost again until World War I) and Hungary. The Viennese finally brought him to a halt in 1529. For the Armenians, this was the beginning of a golden age. As the Ottomans expanded their realm further and further, the Armenians followed right on the heels of the victorious armies. The domain for their activities as traders and craftsmen grew until it was a hundred times the size of their original district in eastern Anatolia.

The Causes of the Armenian Tragedy

The Armenian tragedy begins. Ultra-nationalistic ideologies together with an unfortunate rivalry between the various Armenian churches and sects heat up the internal political climate in the Ottoman Empire. The superpowers of the time - England, Russia and France - wanted to weaken the Ottoman Empire, and they used the Armenians callously toward this end.

Until this time, Armenians and Turks had lived together in nearly perfect harmony from the time of the Seljuk conquest of the Byzantine lands in eastern Anatolia (eleventh and twelfth centuries) until well into the nineteenth century.

The causes of the "Armenian Tragedy" are not to be found inside, but rather outside the realm of the multinational empire of the Seljuks and Ottomans. In the nineteenth century, it was primarily Russia which was responsible for bringing unrest to the Ottoman Empire. They did, however, have the help of some Americans, such as the Protestant missionaries from Boston.

Russia's objective was to gain access to the "warm seas". The American Protestant missionaries proved themselves to be "useful idiots" for the Russians.

The Rivalry Among the Churches and Sects to Win the Favor of the Ottoman Armenians

While on a missionary trip to the Choctaw Indians, the North American missionary William Goodell came up with the idea of "reconquering" the Holy Land for Christianity. At that time, the Holy Land was entirely under Ottoman rule.

This new Crusade - for that is exactly how the undertaking was seen - began with a series of reconnaissance tours, planned in an almost military fashion. The American missionaries spared no personal sacrifice in the course of these tours. Their total dedication to a cause in which they truly believed deserves our respect. In 1821, a small advance troop set up camp on the Holy Sepulchre.

Their main objective was to have a missionary (Protestant) influence on the many pilgrims there. This first missionary effort in Jerusalem was a complete fiasco. Neither the Jews nor the Muslims nor anyone else was interested in being converted to American-style Protestantism. Finally the Americans abandoned this unfortunate attempt at proselytizing in Jerusalem, and they moved their operations to Beirut. In spite of strong resistance from all the Christian groups in Lebanon, the Americans did succeed in winning two Armenians over to their camp, Gregor Vardapet and Garabed Dionysius. At that time, the Armenians were exclusively Gregorian. They were subject to the rule of their patriarch in Istanbul in all matters of civil law. It soon became clear that it was the Armenians who were most interested in what the Americans were offering. What they found most attractive was the generous offer of education.

The Protestant missionaries started down several false paths in the Ottoman Empire. Their missionary activities took them to Malta, Greece, and finally on to Izmir (Smyrna). At the same time, they must be credited with some admirable achievements. In the end, it became quite clear that their experiences throughout the empire would follow the pattern established in Beirut. In other words, their mission only met with success among the Armenian Gregorians. Two major facts about the Armenian Orthodox hierarchy contributed to this success. First of all, the hierarchy did not pay enough attention to the educational needs of the highly intelligent Armenians. Secondly, it was practically drowning in wealth and power. The Americans finally opened their mission headquarters in Constantinople under the direction of William Goodell. In studying the history of the American missionaries in the Ottoman Empire, it is quite intriguing to follow the story of all the wrong turns the missionaries took before they finally recognized with great relief that the capital of the huge empire was also without a doubt the best location for their headquarters.

The studies done by the missionaries Smith and Dwight soon confirmed the pattern established in Beirut and Izmir (Smyrna). The Armenians, hungry for learning, gratefully and eagerly accepted the education offered by the "American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions" in Constantinople.

As early as 1833, many Armenian students, eager for learning and knowledge, were converting to Protestantism. In the same year, the Protestant mission already had more than fifteen young Armenian clergymen. The missionary wave soon spread from Constantinople into the provinces. In 1834, Benjamin Schneider opened a mission in Bursa. Another in Trabzon soon followed. Five years later, in 1839, came the beginning of what the Protestant Armenian-Americans refer to in their historical writings as the "spirit of persecution". The Armenian orthodox clergy had become uneasy about the incredible success that the American missionaries were having among the most talented and capable Armenians. They launched an effort to get rid of the missionaries and win back the Armenians who had gone astray. When persuasion did not work, the church turned to force. Schools were burned to the ground, and according to the missionary chronicler William E. Strong, "arrests were made and terror spread". The patriarch was deposed for being too tolerant, and a list was drawn up of roughly five hundred "principal suspects". They belonged to the highest social classes of the Armenian millet; they were bishops, bankers, businessmen and artists; and they were all accused of heresy. That meant expulsion from the Gregorian Church, which at that time was equivalent to losing one's nationality - a personal catastrophe for those affected. Without membership iri a millet, one could not marry or have a Christian burial. One enjoyed no protection under the law and was subject to social ostracism.

Nevertheless, Protestantism continued to gain ground among the Armenians. This was undoubtedly due to the fine abilities of the American-Armenian clergy, as well as the thirst for learning of the Ottoman Armenians. A Protestant mission even sprung up in Van, practically the farthest corner of the huge Ottoman Empire, and the Protestants won converts among the "Mountain Nestorians" in the distant Hakkari Mountains. Protestantism did not bring much luck to either the Nestorians or the people of Van, however. Both the Armenians and the Nestorians started collaborating with the Russians (using American money) and finally drifted into the revolt movement of March, 1915. The Ottomans responded with a general relocation order. That was the beginning of the Ottoman-Armenian catastrophe of 1915, which claimed so many tragic victims on both sides.

The Beginning of the End -

The Formation of a Protestant Armenian Millet

In 1846, the curtain came down twice on the Armenians, both literally and figuratively. In the church of the Armenian Orthodox Patriarchate in Constantinople, with the curtains drawn and the altar covered, the patriarch read an excommunication order against the Armenians who had converted to Protestantism. They were accused of - and threatened with - every kind of evil in the world. Afterwards, the excommunication edict was read in all the Armenian Orthodox churches in the land under the same kind of theatrical circumstances. The great powers rushed to the aid of the Protestant Armenians, who had now been stripped of all their rights. England was especially eager to help because it saw the situation as a good opportunity for intervention. Finally, the grand vizier of the Ottoman Empire was forced to act. On July 1, 1846, a new millet was created in the Ottoman Empire - the "First Evangelical Armenian Church". In 1848, the grand vizier published an imperial "ferman" (proclamation) concerning this matter, and two years later the Sultan personally granted a charter to his new Protestant millet. Now the Protestant Armenians had the right to elect their own representatives, who could then present their concerns to the Sublime Porte with the same rights as the representatives of the Orthodox Church.

In the beginning, the new era looked promising. The intentions of the Protestant missionaries had undoubtedly been good, and they had shown unprecedented courage and selfless devotion. Nevertheless, the outcome was unintentionally disastrous for the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire.

With the establishment of the Protestant millet, a threeway struggle began for the hearts of the Ottoman Armenians. First, there was the old, established "Gregorian" Church, which still referred back to its founding by St. Gregory the Illuminator. Next came the Protestant Church, officially established in 1850, and thirdly the Armenian Catholic community of the Ottoman Empire, although the latter must admittedly be measured on a different scale.

While the Protestants owed their official acceptance to English (and to a lesser extent American) intervention, the establishment of the Catholic Armenian millet was a result of the intervention of the French, who had always seen themselves as the protectors of Catholics living in the East.

The first Catholic Armenian patriarch Hagop Chukurian was recognized by the Sultan in 1831. It is significant that his first residence was in Adana, in the precincts of the former Armenian kingdom of Cilicia, which had ceased to exist centuries before. Armenians had been living in Cilicia ever since an ambitious relocation program carried out by the Byzantines in the wake of several Byzantine victories over the Arabs. The Hetums and the Rubens were the most important Armenian families among those relocated, and they produced the leaders of Cilicia. In 1080, the Rubens felt that they were strong enough to establish a separate principality, independent of the Byzantines. "Armenian Cilicia" existed as a wholly or at least partially independent principality until the year 1375, when the Mamluks brought it to an end.

The Armenian leaders of Cilicia were of course always looking for allies positioned behind their immediate neighbors.

These included the otherwise disparaged Mongols and the even more hated Catholics. Cilicia even formed an alliance with the Crusaders. The climax of this alliance came in 1198 when Conrad Cardinal von Wittelsbach anointed Prince Leo II. King of Cilicia. The fourteenth century was a time of bitter, merciless struggle between the Armenian Orthodox and Armenian Catholic families of Cilicia. In 1342, Cilicia became "Frankish" when it fell to Guy de Lusignan. The Gregorian majority among the Cilician Armenians reacted with rebellion, and in 1344 Guy de Lusignan and three hundred of his Frankish knights were killed. Under his Catholic successors, the "kingdom" of Cilicia consisted only of the city of Sis. In April of 1375, the Mamluks conquered Sis and took Leo V. prisoner, thus extin-

The location of the Armenian Catholic church in Istanbul could not be more appropriate. The church practically grows out of the elegant building complex of the former French Embassy. Analogously, the establishment of a separate Armenian Catholic millet in 1831 can be attributed to massive French pressure on the Sublime Porte (Bab-› Ali).

Robert College, Istanbul (today, Bo¤aziçi University). Founded in 1840 as a school for gifted Armenians, it also proved to be a training ground for Armenian nationalism. The founders of Robert College, in particular Cyrus Hamlin, saw great significance in the location of the new college. It was built right next to Rumeli Hisar›, the fortress from which the Ottomans had conquered half of Europe. The new school buildings were to become a symbol of the "reconquista". In his history of the "American Board", William E. Strong describes the school's founder as the "terror of the evasive Turk", whereas the Armenians were to be assisted "in every way possible". Misunderstood ultra-nationalism now started to run its course.


guishing the last traces of any Armenian state entity. It is open to question, however, whether Frankish Cilicia really had anything to do with Armenia in the first place. The death in Paris of the last king of Cilicia struck many Europeans as very romantic.

A Franciscan monk had bought the king's freedom from the Mamluks following an ambitious fundraising drive. It was especially the French who remembered the king's death. This was, among reasons, because Leo V. was laid to rest next to the French kings in the Celestine Monastery in Paris following a solemn state funeral.

The fall of the Cilician kingdom occured in the year 1375, a good century and a half before the conquest of Cilicia by the Ottomans. Many Armenians did of course continue to live in Cilicia, although they were always a small minority here, as they were throughout Anatolia. The memory of King Leo was still alive in 1831 when the French forced the establishment of a Catholic Armenian patriarchate. It was probably also still alive in 1915 when they acted as accomplices to the tragedy suffered by the local Ottoman-Armenian population during the rebellion of Musa Dagh. They were accomplices to another crime in 1918 when they landed troops in the South and made promises to the Armenian community which they were unable to keep.

A book that appeared in 1896 with the title Turkey and the Armenian Atrocities (the author was certainly not aware of the ambiguity of the chosen title) shows just how far the American Protestants were willing to go with their propagandistic excesses. The spirit and content of the book are best illustrated by a few lines from the foreword by Francis E. Willard. Armenians are apparently the most noble race in the world since, "in countenance, figure, and poise they are remarkably attractive. That is to say that their personal appearance comes closer to the probable appearance of Our Lord than that of any other race." Francis E. Willard describes

The American Protestant mission to the Armenians of Van began its work in 1872. The resistance from the indigenous Armenian Orthodox clergy was bitter. (Van had, after all, been the seat of the Armenian Catholics for a long time.) It was thus a full five years before the Americans managed to erect the first place of worship for their mission. The Americans called Van "the Sebastopol of the Armenian Church" obviously alluding to the long siege and eventual assault by the allies in 1855.

Partly because of the bitter rivalry between Orthodox and Protestant Armenians over who the "better" Armenian was, Van quickly became a breeding ground for fanatical nationalism. This erupted in a number of uprisings and finally led to the revolt of 1915, in which tens of thousands of Muslims lost their lives. What had started with an offer of education ended in nationalistic excesses, in spite of the idealistic zeal of many well-meaning missionaries, such as Dr. Reynolds and his wife.

Worship service in an Armenian Protestant church in Istanbul (built in 1914, immediately before the outbreak of World War I).


the Armenians as "unarmed" and says that they would never do "anything to harm anyone". In view of the huge quantities of arms that the Armenians not only stockpiled but also put to use in numerous uprisings, these remarks seem to be nothing but pure mockery. 1896 was a year of intensive Armenian terrorist activity. It was the year of the spectacular raid on the Ottoman Bank, where hostages were taken. But Islamic hostages obviously meant nothing at all to those who had an uncritical preference for the "Armenian race". After all, "the Mohammedans believe in the harem above all else." Conclusion: "Armenians are the nation, the Sultan and his soldiers are the devil's scourge. A cold-hearted observer is the Anglo-Saxon race." Apparently the intervention of England and the United States was not enough to satisfy some Protestant missionaries. Similar views were expressed by the Russians. By the turn of the century, the Armenians had become the great powers' favorite pretense for getting involved in the internal affairs of the Ottoman Empire.

Trapped by bloodhounds: Sultan Murad V is shown here trying to deal with the rebellious European provinces of the Ottoman Empire: Bosnia; Herzegovina; Montenegro; and Serbia. These nations all had the distinct advantage of having solid, self-contained national minorities on their territory. (The Armenians, on the other hand, did not even come close to having a well-defined area of settlement anywhere in the Ottoman Empire in which they were in the majority.) The Czar of Russia, Austria's Emperor Franz Joseph, Emperor Wilhelm I, King George I of Greece, and Italy's King Humbert all look on with interest, while Germany's Bismarck and England's Beaconfield are ready to jump into the fray. The Armenian patriarch, Nerses II Vartabedian, declared to the British ambassador at the time, "that if, in order to secure the sympathy of the European powers, it was necessary to rise in insurrection, there would be no difficulty in getting up such a movement" (Letter of the British ambassador, Henry Elliot, to his foreign minister in London; F. O. 424/46, p. 205-206; December 7, 1876).

Cartoon: PUNCH, July 22, 1876.

Artin Dadyan Pasha, Ottoman Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1880-1887) actually did not work for the Sultan but for the Armenian case . . .

The Ottoman-Armenian architect Garabed Amira Balyan (1800- 1866, above left) worked for the Sultan Abdülmecid (center) and Sultan Abdülhamid II (right). Among his most significant works are the Ortaköy Mosque and the imposing Dolmabahçe Palace in Istanbul, on the banks of the Bosphorus.


Over the years, virtually all foreign and domestic trade passed into the hands of the Ottoman Armenians. Later, this fact would contribute to their undoing because the ringleaders of the Armenian uprisings based their actions partly on the belief that the Ottoman Empire would surely collapse if the Armenians withdrew their friendship


End of Part II

  • Part III
  • Part IV
  • Part V
  • Part VI
  • Part VII -Final

  • .

    Read The Full Post by Clicking Here Read Full Post !