The Nineteenth Century: A Golden Age for Armenians and Ottomans, in Spite of the Beginnings of Nationalistic Agitating from Abroad
After the conquest of Istanbul, Sultan Mehmed Fatih strove to establish a good working relationship with all the peoples subject to him and to grant wide-ranging autonomy. (It would actually be more correct to speak of religious communities instead of "peoples". Ethnic and racial concepts hardly existed at the time.) Just eight years after the conquest of Istanbul, Sultan Mehmed Fatih summoned the Armenian Orthodox archbishop of Bursa, Hovakim, to Istanbul. He had been chosen by the Ottomans, and the Sultan named him patriarch. Patriarch Hovakim became the spiritual (and to a large extent also the secular) leader of all non-Islamic, non-Greek Orthodox inhabitants of the Ottoman Empire. His power greatly surpassed that of the Armenian Catholicoses of Echmiadzin and Sis. Never in the history of the Armenian people had an Armenian possessed as much power and authority as Patriarch Hovakim (and his successors until well into the nineteenth century). The Armenians always got along better with the Ottoman Sultans than did the Greeks. The Greek Orthodox patriarchs of Constantinople, such as Gennadios II Scholarios, Isidoros II Xanthoüulos, and Sophronios I Syropolos, came and went so fast that they seemed to be developing a revolving-door patriarchate. The Armenians, on the other hand, found the right tone for dealing with the Ottomans from the start, and their power grew ever greater. Photos: His Beatitude the Armenian Orthodox Patriarch of Istanbul Snork Kalutsyan; scenes from the 29th of May, the anniversary of the conquest of Constantinople in 1453.
His Beatitude the Armenian Orthodox Patriarch of Istanbul Snork Kalutsyan
An illustration from the "Turkischer Hofer" (Nuremberg, 1721) shows a typical master builder from the happy days of Ottoman-Armenian co-existence and mutually beneficial cooperation. In those days, the Sultan still referred to the Armenians as his "loyal millet".
That was before diabolical ultra-nationalistic sentiments began creeping into the Armenian community. These sentiments were as misunderstood as they were excessive. They have been the downfall of many a people, and they were indeed the down fall of the Haik.
The "turbe" (mausoleum) of the last Sultan to die on Ottoman soil, Mehmed V Reshad. He ascended the throne on April 27, 1909 and died when the First World War was at its climax, on July 2, 1918.
His mausoleum was built by an Armenian architect. It was located below Eyüp, directly on the banks of the Golden Horn.
Krikor Amira Balyan built the charming Nusretiye Mosque (1835). A few more examples of the total cooperation between Ottomans and Armenians, which partially survived the Armenian uprising of 1915 and the subsequent relocation of the Armenians in Anatolia.
The conquest of Constantinople by Sultan Mehmed Fatih in 1453 and the subsequent promotion of the Armenian Orthodox arch bishop of Bursa to patriarch of Constantinople marked the beginning of a golden age for the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire - often in the literal sense of the word. Armenians took over the minting of coins in the Ottoman Empire, and the accounting in the main treasury office in Istanbul was conducted in the Armenian language.
A kiosk of Beylerbeyi Palace, across from Çira¤an Palace on the south bank of the Bosporus. Built by Agop Balyan.
The portal of Dolmabahçe Palace, built by the Ottoman-Armenian architect, Garabed Amira Balyan, showing the "tughra", the supreme imperial signature of Sultan Abdülmecid.
The English saw what the Russians were demanding of the Europeans in the dictate of San Stefano as reckless gambling. As a precondition for their participation in the Congress of Berlin, which was Bismarck's idea, England insisted that every single article of the "Treaty" of San Stefano be closely scrutinized.
(PUNCH, March 30, 1878)
The Marquis of Salisbury (British foreign minister, 1878-1880).
The American Embassy building in Istanbul-Pera, one of the most elegant parts of town. At the turn of the century, it was the neighborhood of choice for rich Armenians and Greeks. It is unlikely that any other ambassador in the Ottoman Empire was as dependent as the U. S. ambassador on the reports and translations of his dragomans (who were without exception of Armenian origin) and the equally pro-Armenian American missionaries. Although the United States and the Ottoman Empire were never at war with one another, the image of the "Terrible Turk" was especially strong in American public opinion. This was one of the effects of the twisted reports that reached Washington from Constantinople.
Great-Power Politics and the Armenian Question
The Mongols were, in their day, the great power. In 1236, they laid waste to Ani, and in 1379 they invaded eastern Anatolia once again under Timurlenk. The plight of the Armenian population was so desperate that the Catholicosate had to be moved to Echmiadzin. Sis, in southern Anatolia was the last Armenian stronghold. It was conquered by the Mamluks in 1375.
After that date, the religious and cultural activities of the Armenians continued to be of significance, but as far as power or territory were concerned, they were out of the historical picture. To understand how an Armenian Question could nevertheless become a factor in great-power politics, we must consider the expansionist aspirations of Czarist Russia and the chess moves connected with those aspirations. The Armenians were merely a pawn in an ugly chess game, and the Russians, whether in Moscow or St.Petersburg, often found it useful to sacrifice that pawn. The speed and determination with which Russia won Persian and Turkish territory is breathtaking. They conquered the southern part of central Asia, northern Persia, the Caucasus, the Crimea, and eventually won access to the Balkans. A quick look at these events makes the importance of an Armenian Question clear, especially if we remember what Russia's primary goal has always been: the conquest of the Dardanelles.
1774 was the prelude to the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire. The Treaty of Karlowitz, sixty-five years earlier, had already been bad enough for the Turks, but now in the Treaty of Küchük Kaynarca, the Ottoman Empire lost so much of its prestige that only the Austrians and the Russians were left with any say in the Balkans. In the East, it was the Russians all alone.
Eastern Anatolia had been Ottoman since 1515. Sultan Murad III. had conquered Georgia in 1578. The Turks' only rivals in the East had been the Persians. In 1639, the Ottomans signed the Treaty of Kasr-› fiirin with the Safavids, and in spite of the wars that followed, the Turkish-Iranian border still follows the line determined in 1639.
All the Turkish-Persian wars affected Armenian territory, but "Armenian" is to be understood here as refering to the historical province. It has nothing to do with any official authority of the Haik people, who lived together with other peoples and tribes in eastern Anatolia and the surrounding area. At the time of the Treaty of Kasr-i fiirin, 1639, the Crimea
The Imperial Russian Embassy complex in Istanbul-fiiflhane. From the beletage of the embassy, the Russians have a magnificent view of the Strait.
was Ottoman as was Georgia and the entire coast line of the Black Sea. The Black Sea was a Turkish-Ottoman inland sea.
Erivan had belonged to the Persians since 1639. It was an almost exclusively Islamic city. Russia's first step toward the Caucasus came in 1556 with the conquest of Astrakhan. Transcaucasia nominally belonged to the Persians, but Azerbaijan was under de facto Ottoman control. Armenians - or more accurately, Haik - were only mentioned once during this period. That was when Shah Abbas moved the Armenians from Erivan and Julfa into the interior of Persia in 1603-1604. Mehmed the Conqueror had founded the Patriarchate of Istanbul in 1461. All the Armenians and Monophysites of the Empire were subject to the patriarchs of Istanbul. The Catholicosates of Sis and Echmiadzin, which was at that time Persian, had absolutely no power in the Ottoman Empire. The Russians became involved in the Turkish-Persian war of 1723-
1727 and sent troops to the Caspian Sea. The Khanate of Kuba, north of Baku, fell under Russian influence.
In 1768, a Russian-Turkish war broke out in the wake of the events in Poland. The Ottoman army was defeated and the Treaty of Küchük Kaynarca was signed in 1774. The Russians now advanced into the Caucasus for the first time. They made it as far as Kutaisi and Ahiska by way of Poti. In other words, they were almost to the present-day border between Turkey and the Soviet Union.
The Treaty of Küchük Kaynarca also gave Kabartay in Transcaucasia (on the east slope of Mount Elbrus) to the Russians, but more important than any territorial gains, it granted to the Russians a certain say in protecting the rights of the Christians of the Ottoman Empire. From this point on, Russia was constantly striving to expand its territory at the expense of the Turks and Ottomans.
This was almost always done under the pretense of protecting Christians.
1783 Russia concluded a defense treaty with the Christian princes of Georgia, thus winning a great deal of control over ancient "Iberia".
1787 Empress Catherine II of Russia met with Emperor Joseph II of Austria in Kherson, on the Crimean peninsula, just sixty kilometers from Yalta. From May 14 until June 13, they discussed how they would divide up the Ottoman Empire. The leaders agreed to the "Greek Scheme", which envisaged the formation of a Greek Orthodox state to be called "Dacia". It was to encompass Bessarabia, Moldavia, and Walachia. This would secure the Russian lands west of the Dnieper as well as Austrian influence in the Balkans. In case of the fall of Constantinople, a new Byzantium was to be established. A short time later, the Ottomans declared war on the Russians, and there was once again fighting in the Caucasus. No more territory changed hands, however.
1796 The Russians took advantage of Persian attempts to win back lost territory as an excuse for marching into Kuba, Baku, Derbent, Shirvan, and Karabagh.
SIR AUSTEN HENRY LAYARD
British Ambassador at Istanbul
1801 The Russians annexed Georgia.
1812 Following the Peace of Bucharest, the Russians gained control of the Rion Basin, west of Souram in the Caucasus.
1813 Following the Peace of Butistan, the Russians occupied the Persian territories on the Caspian Sea (roughly in accordance with the present-day Russian-Iranian border). When Shah Abbas Mirzan tried to win back his lost territory, he was defeated once again, this time disastrously.
1828 In the Treaty of Turkmenchai, the Persians were forced to cede the Khanates of Erivan and Nakhiche van (today an autonomous S.S.R., just to the south east of Ararat) to the Russians. The borders laid down at that time are still valid today. This was the first war in which Armenian volunteers took part in large numbers, as they did later in 1914-22. The Haik of the Erivan region were now under Russian rather than Iranian control.
This had very grave consequences, since the Russians had already seen how they could exploit the Armenians as useful tools.
Echmiadzin, the seat of an Armenian Orthodox Catholicos, also fell under Russian control in 1828.
In the wake of the Treaty of Turkmenchai and the dismal war with the Greeks, British, and French in the West, the Russians were able to advance as far as Erzurum.
1829 In the Treaty of Edirne, the Russians obtained the Black-Sea strongholds of Poti and Anapa, as well as Ahiska, Ahilkalek, and Akchur, thus establishing the present-day Russian-Turkish border. The Caucasus now belonged entirely to the Russians. This peace treaty granted the Haik and the Muslims the right to choose between Russia and the Ottoman Empire. More than 100.000 Armenians left the areas beyond Erzurum at that time and moved to the region that is now the Soviet Republic of Armenia. Likewise, the majority of The Russian victory in the war of 1878 / 79 was disastrous for the Ottoman Empire and also brought on a catastrophe for the Turks of the Balkan Peninsula. Within just a few days, 400.000 Islamic Turks were slaughtered in the newly formed principality of Bulgaria. More than one million Turkish refugees fled to Istanbul. The refugees tried in desperation to free the deposed Sultan Murad, who was interned in Ç›ra¤an Palace. They believed he might be able to change the course of the war. The guards were responsible for a bloodbath among the rebels. (Drawing from the VSEMIRNAYA ILLUSTRATIYA, St. Petersburg, May 24, 1878.)
None of the major powers saw fit to champion the cause of the Ottoman refugees. The mass murders went unpunished.
One of the masterpieces of Ottoman-Armenian architecture.
Çira¤an Palace on the Bosphorus was built by Nigogosh Balyan.
Sultan Murad V spent his years of banishment here. Today, after renovation, it serves as a de luxe hotel.
Muslims left the Caucasus and settled in Anatolia. Until this time, Erivan had been inhabited almost exclusively by Muslims. After the Treaty of Turkmenchai (1828, Turkmenchai is located in northern Persia, on Lake Urmia), the Czar founded an Armenia out of the former Khanates of Erivan and Nakhichevan. He made all inhabitants of the region Russian citizens, and declared himself "King of Armenia". He also had the title "King of Poland".
1849 The Caucasus region was divided into two parts, but in
1854 this division was revoked because of constant riots as the Muslims simply could not accept the rule of the Georgian and Armenian Christians in these large regions. Prince Vorontsov, who was in charge of reorganizing this region, broke it up into a large number of small political provinces. The Armenians lived mainly in the province of Tiflis, but they soon came in large numbers to the Erivan region as well.
1854 was also the year of the Crimean War, which broke out because the Ottomans refused to recognize a general Russian protectorate of the Christians of the Ottoman Empire. The goal of the Russians was to bring about the fall of the Ottoman Empire.
They wanted to let the "sick man on the Bosphorus" die and seize power themselves. 1854 Kars fell to the Russians after a heroic defense.
1856 The "Protocol of Vienna" brought an end to the Crimean War. The Peace of Paris, in the same year, was a genuine success for the Ottoman Empire. Kars was given back to them, and the odious "protectorate" over the Orthodox Christians of Turkey was abolished. (This protectorate could almost be seen as an anticipation of the later Brezhnev Doctrine.) England, in particular, had refused to accept the plans for dividing up the Ottoman Empire because they saw their own interests endangered.
Just twenty years later, Russia would try once again to bring the Ottoman Empire to its knees.
1863 A "Reglement de la nation armenienne" was publi shed. This did not alter the status of the Armenians within the Ottoman Empire in any way.
Its purpose was to restrict the rights of the patriarch, in accordance with the wishes of the representatives of the Armenian minority. The creation of the Catholic and Protestant millets had already curbed the power of the patriarch. Now the political representatives of the Armenians were getting into the act as well, and everyone was fighting with everyone else to gain the upper hand within the Armenian millet. The effect was obviously detrimental to the Armenians and only profitable for the radicals.
Sensible Armenians recognized even then that it could only have disastrous consequences for their people if the old plans to set up a Greek Orthodox Byzantium under Russian protectorate were realized. These plans had not been forgotten since the Crime-Beylerbeyi Palace on the Bosphorus, one of the masterpieces of the Ottoman-Armenian architect, Agop Balyan, was the scene of a meeting between Sultan Abdulhamid II and Russian Grand Duke Nicholas. At the beginning of the war, the Armenians had solemnly declared their loyalty to the Ottoman Empire, but in the Ottomans' hour of greatest need, the Armenians, who had always been the "loyal millet" in the past, ran to the Russians and tried to take advantage of the situation. The Ottomans could never forget this breach of faith. Ottoman-Armenian relations started becoming more difficult from that moment on.
Meguerditch (or KHIRMIAN (1821 - 1907) with nickname "Hayrig" (little father) patriarche of Constantinople (Istanbul) (1899 - 1873) then catholicos (1893 - 1907) responsible for the foundation of the extremist group YERGIR, "the way, how the Haik called their correspondent home."
Khirmian, a ruthless Armenian nationalist - his religion was not Christianity but Nationality traveled 1878 to Berlin in order to present the Armenian demands at the congress. At Edirne he met the tarist invadors which was considered by the Ottomans as high treason. He worked close together with the Armenian officers serving in the Russian army (mainly with Loris Melikian, general Lazarian and general Ter Goukassian in Eastern Anatolia.
The whole enterprise was a typical rehearsal for the Russo-Armenian attack against Ottoman East-Anatolia 1915. He was one of the creators of the "Mouvement Révolutionnaire HAY" which ended disastrous.
an conference between Joseph II and Catherine II.
If carried out, they would certainly have led to renewed attempts from the Greek (or Russian) Orthodox Church to bring the Armenians entirely under their control. Russian rule in the Caucasus had already demonstrated quite clearly that the Czar had never dreamed of granting special rights to the Armenians and certainly had no thought of granting them their independence as some had hoped.
That would only have led the other nations under Russian control to have similar thoughts of independence. The fact is that until 1870 the Armenians were of almost no significance on the international political scene. The calamity that was to come crept up slowly, almost unnoticed.
1876 A conference of ambassadors in Istanbul simply refused outright to accept a demarche from the Armenian patriarch. The only ones who had ever shown any interest in the Armenians were the Russians, who sometimes found the Armenian minority useful for their territorial expansion in the East.
Occasionally, they even used the Armenians as henchmen to spread fear and panic among the Muslims without getting their own hands dirty. (A good example is the conquest of Erzurum in 1839 where the Armenians were responsible for a massacre of Muslims.)
1877 With the Balkans already given away, it became clearer and clearer that the Russians wanted to advance along the Erzurum-Alexandretta (today Iskenderun) axis toward the Mediterranean. Now the Armenians started to take on real importance for the Russians. They were expected to serve as a Fifth Column. At this point, the Russians no longer restricted themselves to exploiting the Armenian clergy. They started using the Armenian revolutionary cadres more and more. At the same time, the English developed an interest in the Armenians.
They came up with the idea of an Arme-
The Selimiye Mosque in Edirne, a masterpiece by Architect Sinan. Representatives of the Armenian patriarch (Khrimian) of Istanbul met in Edirne in 1878 with the victorious Russians. The Ottomans saw this as shameless treachery.
nian buffer state, which could serve as a check on the great powers in the event of a collapse of the Ottoman Empire.
1877 April 24 saw the beginning of a new war with Russia. It was the shortest of all the wars, but also the most devastating for the Ottomans. "The catastrophe of twelve-ninety-three" (that was the year according to the Ottoman calendar) is still proverbial for the Turks of today. From the start, the Russians had the advantage on the eastern front.
Kars fell on November 18. The Russians were under the command of the Armenian general Loris Melikof. While Erzurum stood firm against all the Russian attacks, the Turks suffered a disastrous defeat near Plevne on the Balkan front.
1878 The Armistice of Edirne was concluded on January 31. The fate of the Ottoman Empire appeared to be sealed. Nothing could stop the Russians from marching right on to Constantinople. The Armenians now established contact with the Russians in Edirne. At the beginning of the war, they had stood solidly behind their Ottoman fatherland. Now, after the catastrophe of Plevne, the entire Armenian camp swung over to the Russian side. The first contacts took place in Edirne. Whether and in what way the patriarch and the catholicos were involved in this scenario is a subject of debate. In any case, the result of these interventions was that the Russians interceded expressly on behalf of the Armenians in the peace dictate of San Stefano. The wording of the passage was, however, left entirely noncommital since the Russians clearly had no intention of granting independence to their own Armenians.
Article 16 of the Treaty of San Stefano (Yesilkoy) states: "... la Sublime Porte s'engage a realiser sans plus de retard les amelioration et les reformes exigees par les besoins locaux dans les provinces habitees par les Armeniens et a garantir leur securite contre les Kurdes et les Circassiens."
This totally empty clause does nothing more than demand that the Ottomans provide for the security of the Armenians against Kurdish and Circassian attacks. It was nevertheless a turning point. The Armenians had now for the first time been mentioned in an international treaty, even if it was in fact a dictate.
The Armenians appreciated it, regardless of its insignificance (and the Russians had good reason for making it so insignificant). Only too soon did it become clear that the "peace treaty" of San Stefano was of a very provisional nature. Both England and Austria rejected it. Eventually the parties agreed to Bismarck's suggestion that a conference be held in Berlin to deal with the Ottoman Question.
The representatives of the great powers met in Berlin from June 13 to July 13, 1878. Aside from the two chancellors, Gorchakov and Bismarck, those present in the new German capital included Count Andrassy of Austria-Hungary, Lord Beaconsfield of Great Britain, Waddington of France, Corti of Italy, and Karatheodori and Mehmed Ali of the Ottoman Empire. The only purpose of the Congress was to remove those conditions from the dictate of San Ste-fano which were too oppressive for the Ottomans. And that is just what was done. The strong Armenian delegation, under the leader ship of Prelate Khrimian - a former Armenian patriarch -had travelled to Berlin in vain. It was al ready common knowledge that the Armenians did not constitute a majority anywhere in Anatolia. It was only in Van itself that they even made up a third of the population. No one wanted to grant autonomy to such a minority.
On what grounds could such an action be justified?
On the 8th of July, 1878, the Congress replaced Article 16 of San Stefano with "Article 61", which for the most part corresponded to the original. Article 62 also dealt with religious freedom, but nowhere was there any talk of autonomy. The Armenian millet was simply not large enough for that. The nineteenth century had become a century of the triumph of the nation states - but also of the democratic majority. Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece, and Romania all became independent, but in every case the nation constituted a solid majority.
In the case of the Armenians, the situation was totally different. It may have been true that an Armenian king had once ruled over an Armenian kingdom in the vast territories that the Armenians were claiming, but that had been almost two thousand years earlier under totally different circumstances. The nineteenth century called for majorities, and it was the Muslims who had the majorities - through out Anatolia.
There were certain Armenian circles that simply could not come to terms with these facts. Groups of revolutionaries, intellectuals, and clergymen, egged on primarily by the Russians but also to some extent by the missionaries, turned to ever more daring and adventurous means in order to attract attention and eventually gain power over the majority.
It´s only one step from myth and mythology to mythomania "A lie travels round the world while Truth is putting on its boots..." Used by Rev. C. H. Spurgeon
Modern Greek defines the notion "myth" simply and clearly: It means saying, fairy tale ... and lie. A "myth" can be a traditional story. A myth is any real or fictional story, a recurring theme which appeals to the consciousness of a people by embodying its cultural (and political!) ideals. A myth is also one of the basic fictions or half-truths that make up a part of any society's ideology. A myth is a notion based more on tradition or convenience than on fact - it is an "idée recue". The world of classical Greece also had a simple answer: MYTHOS (MYTOS) means word, rumour, legend, lie. Many peoples, empires, religious bodies, or political parties live off their myths. In the case of Japan it is the myth that the Imperial family are descended from the sun-goddess Amaterasu. In China the ruler was seen as the son of heaven. The Romans fed their state myth on the paps of a she-wolf.
During the "Third Reich", Alfred Rosenberg's book Der Mythos des 20. Jahrhunderts, now only regarded as an object of ridicule, propagated the absurd idea of a religiously-based heroic mythology of national honor. His aim was the foundation of a "Church of the Germanic Nation". For Rosenberg, who was one of Hitler's closest collaborators, "rassengebundenes Volkstum" (the notion of peoplehood based on race) was of all principles the one he valued most highly. Four years after the publication of this creation of his, the Catholic Church - for which, as a "universal" Church, no race or origin has preference over another - performed the heroic deed of putting Rosenberg's exposition on the Index. And yet the myth of race and of such a thing as a national Church lives on. It´s only one step from myth and mythology to mythomania…
Mythology is a collection of myths about the origin and history of a people and their deities, ancestors and heroes. So far so good. Unfortunately the way from myth and mythology to mythomania is extremely short.
Mythomania is a compulsion to embroider the truth, to exaggerate, finally to tell lies. "Mania" stands for any violent abnormal behaviour e. g. in form of terrorism.
A highly explosive mix comes into being when religiously-colored legends from yesteryear are combined with contemporary myths about alleged historic rights, usually related to territorial, financial or power-related claims. The spectrum ranges from "Großdeutschland" to "Greater Serbia" and "Greater Armenia". While the consequences are sufficiently well-known to render an account of them superfluous here, the real tragedy is that innumerable innocent people thereby lose property that is rightfully theirs and are compelled to leave their homeland, and that many lose their lives in the process ...
In recent times, this has happened as a result of the brutal and aggressive offensive carried out by the Armenians on their neighboring country.
Today, more than 20 percent of Azerbaijani terri-
Alfred Rosenberg was the head ideologist of the Nazi regime. The book Der Mythos des 20. Jahrhunderts ("The Myth of the 20th Century") was the only publication of any note during that period.
He was condemned to death in Nuremberg, 1946, as an "originator of racial hatred", but sadly, the example made of him for his terrifying deeds has not had any great effect. His absurd teachings on descent and extraction are still with us, with all their tragic consequences.
Aggressive Hayastan holds 20% of Azerbaijan´s territory, 1 million Azeris lost their home
tory is forcibly occupied by Armenia; Armenian forces have driven more than a million people from their homes and homeland, with tens of thousands losing their lives in the course of the war. And yet the legend of the Armenian people as a people uninterruptedly subjected to persecution continues to flourish, so thick and impenetrable is the curtain of obfuscation separating the myth of "genocide" from the reality. In the course of the decades, the stage of world history has degenerated into a spectacle played out in a puppeteer's booth. The achievement of the Armenian propaganda experts has been quite unique - never before has a political community, forged in this case out of revolutionaries and fanatics of every political coloring and with the active assistance of the Armenian Church, of Protestant sects and American "missionaries", been so successful in brewing up such a myth (the word is used here in the sense: lie, historical lie) as this unholy society continues to do even today.
While the Armenians are in the process of forcing literally all Azerbaijanis of the western parts of Azerbaijan to leave their homeland, a German historian (Heinrich August Winker) is just one of many who demand in all seriousness "the recognition of the genocide of 1915". Remarkable - is it not? - that this man has never wasted a word on the Bene.. Decrees, passed after the end of the Second World War which created a legal basis for the expulsion of three million Sudeten Germans, in the course of which 241.000 civilians lost their lives and 250.000 soldiers of the former Wehrmacht were shot down, and all of this after the end of the war. In its negotiations with Turkey, the European Parliament is now making "the recognition of the genocide committed against the Armenians, and respect for the rights of the Kurds" a condition for membership of the EU, while there is no mention of the events that took place in Czechoslovakia in 1945, in spite of their being throroughly documented. Prague has managed to secure Czech membership in the EU
A flag, designed after the Armenian model, with Turkey´s Mount Ararat in the banner of Hayastan: The French tricolore with the Canadian leaf… a claim…!
(World-class murderers and child abductors, the Turks Armenianized (Armenized) their Mongol-Asian genes with Christian girl and boy bloody abductions numbering in five millions (plural) across brutal centuries). Ms. Vanou Armenya Genocidal TURKEY AND THE EUROPEAN UNION Murders TURKEY AND THE EUROPEAN UNION NO! Killer Murderer TURKEY THE EUROPEAN UNION NONO no WAY Black Sea Turks are Armenians. The Turks ISLAMIFIED THOUSANDS BY SWORD ON NECK!
without having had to distance itself in the slightest from the Bene.. Decrees, which are in fact still in force. As a professional historian such as Heinrich August Winkler can hardly be unaware of these facts, one has to doubt his credibility and cannot but ask the obvious questions. Why does a man do such a thing?
The roots of the evil lie, as almost always, in a distorted view of history which at any one moment only perceives what is pleasing to the eye of the beholder. One example of this is related to the Armenians' claim that they are directly descended from Noah, and to the fact that they regard this descent as a privilege notable enough that it can provide the foundation for their State myth. Quite apart from its absurdity (if it is true that the human race is descended from Noah, then this is clearly the case for all mankind), this claim is also a political danger because if it is given credence it can be used as a pseudohistorical justification for the demands of the Armenian mafia.
Quite without provoking a reaction either from world opinion or, strangely enough, from Ankara, the Republic of Armenia has in its state coat-of-arms Mount Ararat, which as nobody would doubt lies on Turkish territory, and also Noah's ark. This is rather as if Germany were to include in its state arms an Atlantic Line fortress, France a Canadian maple leaf, or the Netherlands the Statue of Liberty, on the grounds that it stands in front of New Amsterdam (I beg your pardon: New York). In Armenia's case, however, the anomaly is related to a real territorial claim. In this connection, it should not be forgotten that the Republic of Armenia still refuses to accept either the Treaty of Gümru or the Treaty of Kars, which lay down the frontiers between Turkey and Armenia, thus leaving open the future option of a war of conquest - with the qualification, of course, that Turkey is not Azerbaijan.
Here, it should be noted, the matter is not whether Turkey should become a member of the EU or not, but rather the character assassination that has been committed on the country.
The Armenian mythomania rests on two pillars. Firstly, there is the racist madness of the claim of direct descent from Noah, which in spite of all its absurdity provides the foundation for the claims to "Greater Armenia", and at the same time is not only used as a justification for wars of aggression and conquest of the kind waged at present against Azerbaijan, but is also used to prove their necessity. Who exactly are the people described so condescendingly by Archbishop Mesrop Krikorian as "worthless Turks".
The second pillar supporting the Armenian mythomania is their self-assumed status of a martyr people. Apart from a few initiates who know the real truth, Armenians all over the world - and the spokesmen for world opinion whom they have indoctrinated - believe firmly in the "genocide", in which according to their mood at the time one million or "several millions" lost their lives. Today, after Turkey has for decades not reacted to these accusations, it is difficult to do anything effective in the cause of truth and to put the mythomaniacs in their proper place. Does this mean that myths, in the form of lies, are really more powerful than facts and truth? They may have long lives, but they are certainly not immortal.
"Animosities are mortal, but the Humanities live forever." John Wilson (1785-1854)
Mark Sykes, 6th Baronet, 1879-1919. He was a diplomat who represented Great Britain in the socalled Sykes-Picot negotiations (1915-1916) concerning the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire after World War I. Sykes served in the South African Boer-War (1899-1902) and was personal secretary in Ireland to George Wyndham, British chief secretary in Ireland. He traveled in Asiatic Turkey for several years. His books about life and style within the Ottoman Empire between Istanbul and Baghdad, from Jerusalem to Van - he knew also I¤d›r, Eriwan and Tiflis - belong to the best ever written reports about the Sultan´s world. Sykes was a perfect observer, who described the Turkish realm not only with reason but also with humor and wit. I personally consider his DARUL- ISLAM (1904) as an impeccable masterpiece.
Mark Sykes describes e. g. a rather harmless incident between Turkomans and Armenians from Zeitun and the consequences:
"Some Revolutionary Society, not beeing satisfied with the general state of affairs in Turkey and scenting collections and relief funds in the future, judged in expedient in the year of grace 1895 to dispatch of Zeitun they pinned their hopes of raising a semi-successful revolution, and six of their boldest agents Mark Sykes, the Zealots of Zeitun and the Reckless Revolutionaries
Marc Sykes and his young friend John Smith with their servants and guides.The child was put in by the muleteers to bring luck. They had!
were accorded to that district. What the end of the revolution would be these desperados recked little, so long as the attention of Europe was drawn to their cause and their collection-boxes.
These individuals, however, found their people by no means ripe for insurrection, and their influence was but small. True, there were certain persons ready to talk sentimentally and foolishly, possible treasonably, but in no way prepared to rise actually in arms. However, an opportunity of embroiling their countrymen unexpectedly presented itself, by taking advantage of which they succeeded in forcing the hand of the Government."
Then came an unimportant incident with the Turkomans, under other circumstances not worth to be mentioned. Mark Sykes continues:
" The agents saw in this move a chance of bringing matters to a crisis, and either attacked, or persuaded the villagers to attack, the commission, killing the Binbashi (captain) and three of the guard, and carrying off the Christian commissioner with them.
The surrounding Armenians, knowing themselves hopelessly compromised, accepted the inevitable and joined the revolutionaries....
The next day the revolutionaries decided to attack the garrison at Zeitun in order to force that town (whose inhabitants had but little inclination) to join a jedad against the Ottoman. After a brief resistance the Castle surrendered, through the incapacity of its besotted commander.
Some of those "boldest Agents" and "desperados" as Mark Sykes called them: Agassi, Melèhe and Abahe, wolfs in sheep´s clothing One of the rare photographs of Zeitun, perhaps a unique specimen.
Mark Sykes is doubtless the most reliable honest witness of these events with all their consequences: How Armenians made money out of blood.
Having gained a victory of some importance, the Armenian force proceeded to the Kurtul district, where they plundered and sacked several Turkish villages, seizing Kurtul and Anderim, where they burnt the konak. On their way back to Zeitun they committed some most disgraceful murders at Çukarhisar (I was told some ghastly details, but I doubt the verocity of them, as they were related to me by a town Armenian, who recounted them with honest pride) in commemoration of the decrease of the late Armenian kingdom, which was finally ended at that place.
After this anarchy supervened, the Muslims and Kurds, infuriated by exaggerated reports, lusting for treasure of the wealthy but feeble Armenians, massacred and overwhelmed them at Marafl and elsewhere."
Finally the Turkish Government sent soldiers towards Zeitun "driving before them the Armenian population, and although certain ´outrages´- these would not be so called if committed by any other troops than those of the Turkish Army - were committed by the troops during the march, I do not think that they were in any way to blame for the conduct of the campaign. It would have been a grave military fault to have left a hostile population in his rear; and the Armenians he called upon to surrender were already too overcome by panic to accept terms, and either awaited destruction in their villages, resisting to the last. or fled to the town of Zeitun, where the revolutionary agents, in order to maintain their prestige, were cramming the population with absurd falsehoods of a British relief column landed at Alexandretta." (Today Iskenderun).
One of them even sent messengers, who returned with hopeful letters which he himself had written. But this impostor and his collegues were not satisfied with the general disloyality of the inhabitants, and felt that some deed should be committed which would absolutely debar the people from any hope of mercy from the Government. Accordingly, they assemled the refugees driven in by Ali Pasha, and repaired with them to the konak, where the imprisoned garrison was quatered, and proceded to murder them with bestial cruelty. It must be remembered that this piece of villainy can in no way impuded to the population of Zeitun but to the disgraceful ruffianism of the revolutionaries and the crazy fanatism of the exasperated and hopeless villagers.
It must also be recorded to the credit of the Zeitunlis themselves that after this abdominable butchery several crept into the yard and rescued some seventy soldiers who survived beneath the corpses of their comrades; fifty seven of these were handed over at the end of the war. It is a relief to find in all these bloody tales of Armenia such noble deeds of kindness on the part of Christians to Muslims, and Muslims to Christians, and that nearly every massacre can bring similar cases to light.
After that foolish slaughter the revolutionary agents may have plumed themselves on a striking piece of policy. Zeitun was compromised beyond recall, and the town prepared to withstand the siege to the last; but here the chapter of Zeitun closes, for within three weeks Edhem Pasha, a noble example of what a cultivated Turk can be, arrived on the scene, and with the assistance of the European Consuls concluded an honorable peace with the town, containing, alas! A clause by which the miserable causes of all this unhappiness and bloodshed were allowed to return unmolested to Europe, where they probably eke out an existence as distinguished as their military adventures. It would appear a grave fault on the part of the powers to have allowed the revolutionary agents to escape, for had these wretched bungling intriguers been hanged, as they richly deserved, it would have strengthened the hand of the Ambassarors at Constantinople."
"They have their own homes to consider, and if they had allowed the revolutionaries to continue their intrigues, there is little doubt that a formidable insurrection would have broken out whenever the moment was favorable (as it seemed to be for them after the defeat of the Turks in Eastern Anatolia, when the civil war at Van broke out, March 1915...).
"Also it must be born in mind that in the event of an Armenian rebellion it was the intention of the conspirators to have perpetrated similar massacres; and while no excuse can be made for the conduct of the Turks in slaughtering Armenians, it should be remembered that massacre is still a recognized method of policy throughout the East, and until lately in the West. Why, indeed, should one say lately, when the behaviour of the allied troops at Peking is a matter of to-day?"
(Mark Sykes could not foresee the events a century later in Bosnia, Iraq..),
It is also a fact that the Armenians have an extraordinary habit of running into danger without possessing the courage to face it, and the revolutionists from abroad were always prepared to provoke a massacre in order to induce the Powers to assist them. I have good reason to know that these wretches actually schemed to murder American missionaries, hoping America would declare war on the supposition that the Turks were criminals."
"The necessary killing in India after the mutiny, although carried out more formally, was just as mercyless; and from all one can gather the gentle Skobeleff pacified Central Asia (and today Putin Tchechnya) much as the Turks aborted the Armenian revolution."
General Michael D. Skobeleff (1843-1882) one of the most famous Russian officers, distinguished by his bravery in the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78, fanatic panslavist, famous for his merciless fight against the Turkic peoples of Central Asia, in our eyes today a true mass-murderer, similar to those who act today in Tchetchenya, or, in Russian interests, against Azerbaijan in a so-called "Armenian" war against Baku which is actually a war of Russia against Azerbaijan on behalf of the interests of Moscow (not Armenia!) to maintain influence in an oil -and gas - rich region at the Caspian. Armenians serve, like always in their history, only as "useful idiots" for a foreign power. (It´s Lenin´s word!).
"The Armenians had intended to fight; had prepared for a revolution; but as usual, on the very first onslaught they were hopeless and panic-stricken, and what they intended to have been a battle ended in a pityful slaughter.
The only few who maintained anything like a bold front were those who took possession of the Armenian Church and held it against the mob; but my admiration for them was lost when I learned that these miserable hounds when they saw the Franciscan monks escaping from their convent fired on them at two hundred yards in hopes of killing a European, and so forcing the hand of the Powers. This ruse I have alluded to before, and it seems to be a favorite stratagem, exhibiting the Armenian nature in its most unpleasant light."
Actually for the Armenian fanatic nationalists there is no difference between any Christian Church (except their own) and or other religious communities. They even did not respect their Armenian compatriots who belonged to the Armenian-Catholic Church (Mechitarists). Meanwhile things have changed. Also the inheritors of the great Mechitar fell victim to Armenian nationalism, became helpless servants.
One of innumerable similar pictures: Some of the arms taken from Armenian bandits of Malatya from where the Armenian insurgents of Zeitun were provided with weapons. This tragic story lasted until 1915 when the Ottoman government was forced to dislocate the Armenian population towards Syria and Mesopotamia, in those days integral part of the Empire.
READY TO EXACT VENGEANCE: the Armenian contingent in the Caucasus (Underwood & Underwood)
The Mechitarists as a special kind of victim of Armenian terror
First of all, I would like to make a comment from a personal perspective.
It is now some decades since I enjoyed cordial relations with the Mechitarists in Vienna. The then Abbot General of this Catholic-Armenian congregation, His Grace Gregoris Manian was one of my closest friends; together with my revered fellow-knight (Order of Saint-Lazarus) Erik Engel we organized a charity concert in the Musikverein, Vienna's celebrated concert hall, which we managed to make into a huge success for the cause of the Catholic Armenians.
Top-ranking members of the Austrian aristocracy such as Regina von Habsburg, Duchess of Sachsen-Meiningen, were present, as were a whole range of distinguished individuals from academia, the theatre, and the civil and foreign service. The event was followed by a birthday celebration for our good friend Erik Engel at the house of the Mechitarists in Vienna.
As a typically unfortunate accident of chance would have it, all this happened just at the time when my book "A Myth of Terror" was published; furthermore, among the guests was Mesrop Krikorian, at that time still a fellowknight (Order of Saint-Lazarus) of mine, and Gregorian bishop in Vienna, who has now long since been archbishop for the Orthodox Armenians in Central Europe. We had had fraternal relations in the order, but when he saw me on this occasion at the Mechitarists, he turned as pale as a whitewashed wall and spat out the following words: "How can you dare to play off these worthless Turks against us Christians?"
It was clear what had happened. He had read my book, and - although the book did not contain a single word against the Armenian people, but was exclusively directed against Armenian terrorism - he felt obliged to denounce me on the spot: "How can you dare ...?" It was to be made clear to me that because Turks were "worthless", it was thus unjust to make any kind of comparison between the casualties incurred by the Armenians, who had been the tragic victims of a civil war that they had themselves provoked, and the much more numerous victims from among the Islamic population, who were after all nothing more than "worthless Turks".
All that happened a long time ago, but - one might imagine - the situation has remained the same. In fact, much has changed - at the Mechitarists' in Vienna, for example. After his death of Gregoris Manian, the Vienna Mechitarists had an influx of extremists, "refugees" from Lebanon who directly threatened not only the solid, decent Mechitarists, but also - so it was said, but practically unverifiably, as all the strings are pulled by a mafialike organization of planners and intriguers – Archbishop Mesrop Krikorian himself, who has certainly become a wiser man since these developments began.
Gregoris Manian had once hoped that he might become Archbishop of the Armenian Catholic Church (the Armenian church that is in communion with Rome). At that time, however, the Vatican was making various efforts to loosen their bonds with the so-called Uniates, that is to say the Eastern-rite Armenians who while they follow the Armenian rite are Catholic in their confession of faith. The Vatican's ultimate goal was (and remained) that of bringing all Armenian Christians back to Rome, which will certainly remain a vain hope because the Armenian Orthodox pursue goals which are first and foremost nationalistic in character.
A particularly striking example of this is related to the "Catholic" Armenians of San Lazzaro, who have since the unrest in Lebanon in the 1970s been infiltrated and undermined by the radicals, and have undergone a diametrical change in orientation.
Their respect for the Ottoman Empire, which in its day bestowed nothing but favors upon them, is entirely extinguished, and has been replaced by blind hatred. The case of the monks of San Lazzaro is unparalleled in this field.
The truth about the present-day Mechitarists of San Lazzaro In the Venetian lagoon, about half way between San Marco and the Lido lies the little island of San Lazzaro: once a place of refuge for the Catholic-Armenian Mechitarists during their persecution by the Armenian Orthodox, and today a hive of nationalistic fanatics who have left everything "Catholic" -everything that has anything to do with a universal Church - far behind them, and are now entirely under the control of precisely those whose forebears so bloodily persecuted their own spiritual forefathers from the school of Mekhitar.
San Lazzaro has had a turbulent history. Many centuries ago, particularly at the time of the crusades, the isle was a quarantine station for lepers and others suspected of having leprosy. These sad souls were looked after by the Knights of Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem, an order which in our own day is still concerned to serve the sick and those deprived of their rights.
The end of the crusades and the gradual disappearance of leprosy meant that there was soon no house of the Knights of Saint Lazarus on the island named after them, which then fell into decay.
This ended when Catholic Armenians were once again in search of a place of refuge after an inferno of persecution had broken out in the Ottoman Empire. They had however not been subjected to persecution by Turkish Muslims, for whom confessional conflicts between the Christian churches were hardly a matter of any great interest, but rather by the Orthodox Armenians ("Gregorians"), who were beginning to fear for their position of power and were prepared to use any means to get rid of the Catholic Mechitarists.
The only member of the Mechitarist Congregation to have been beatified - Ter Gomidas, a Catholic-Armenian priest persecuted and executed by the Armenian Orthodox - suffered the fate of having his memory damned, for purely political reasons.
The Gregorians stopped short of neither oppression nor terror, nor even of murder. A classic example is that of the Catholic-Armenian priest Ter Gomidas Keumurdjian, whom the Gregorians had publicly executed in the year 1707. The Sultan had offered the option of converting to Islam to escape the rough justice being dealt him at the hands of his fellow Armenians. But in vain: he died as a true martyr, and was accordingly beatified as Blessed Der Gomidas by Pope Pius XI on June 23, 1929.
Today, the Mechitarists act as if Ter Gomidas had never lived, and do all they can to bring about his damnation memoriae, the eradication of his memory.
Although the Catholic-Armenian church of S. Nicola in Rome still contains the quite fantastic painting of a meeting between Gregory the Illuminator with Pope Silvester, the contemporary picture of Ter Gomidas was taken away without discussion, in order "not to jeopardize ecumenical efforts".
Today the Mechitarists act as if they had never been subjected to incredibly brutal, bloody and merciless persecution by the Armenian Orthodox; on the contrary, their writings - such as those which are sold on San Lazzaro - glorify such war criminals as Andranik, a murderer who was guilty of some of the worst atrocities on the occasion of the Armenian uprising at Sassun.
On 13 April 1904 Ottoman soldiers were dispatched against the rebels of Sassoun. They were not able to resist for long, but Andranik´s gangs could do so until August. He then fled to Caucasia. The confrontations were reported later by his Armenian friends who quote also in plain triumph the amount of victims: Between May and August 1904 932 - 1132 Turks were killed, as opposed to only 19 Armenians.
These are figures provided by Armenians. But this rebellion, too, was included in the literature as a "massacre". The booklet ARMENIA AND SAN LAZZARO, on sale at the monastery of San Lazzaro is full of these sayings.
A similar description in ARMENIA AND SAN LAZZARO concerns "The Dashnaks: a guerilla action in Constantinople... It was nothing less than the occupation of the most important and famous Eastern bank, the Ottoman Bank of Constantinople. This courageous and spectacular action had been thought up and put into effect by the Dashnak party as being sure to have an effect. And so it did. The ambassadors of the Western Powers met and asked the rebels to leae the bank in exchange for concessions from the Ottoman government of reforms in favor of the Armenian minority..." Can there be any doubt about the results of these "concessions", results which the whole world is feeling more and more confronted with terrorism, from ASALA to PKK to AL KAIDA? These things must be stopped before they get out of hand!
Ani fell never victim of Turks. It was hurt by Byzantine and Mongolian invaders, but finally by an earthquake 1319.
Caption in "Armenia and San Lazzaro", concerning one of the most ruthless terrorists ever:
“General Andranik, one of the most famous soldiers in contemporary Armenian history. With outstanding skill and courage he led the resistance of the Armenian population, writing one of the brilliant pages of the history of people: the defence of the of Sassoun against the Turkish attacks at the beginning of the 20th century.” No comment.
End of Part III