0002) Armenians In Ottoman Documents

Foreword

It is known that throughout history the Huns and some Turkish clans had relations with the Armenians and that these relations continued intensively especially during the period of the Seljuks and the Ottomans. In other words, the relations between the Turks and the Armenians have a rooted . . . . past.

In order to reach a sound evaluation about the Turco-Armenian relations, these should be dealt with covering a period of approximately thousand years starting from the appearance of the Seljuks in Anatolia.

Before the conquest of the Seljuks, there were princedoms attached to Byzantium which were called Ardzuruni located around Ani, Bagrat and Van in East Anatolia. However, Byzantium abolished these princedoms and deported the people here to Anatolia. Those who were deported to Cilicia established the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia by taking advantage of the Crusades. As it is known, the Mamelukes gave an end to this kingdom in 1375.

After 1071, regions where Armenians were living came under the administration of the Seljuks followed by the Harezmşahs, the Ilkhanids, the Timurs, the Karakoyunlular and partially the Safavids.

With the conquest of Sultan Yavuz Selim and Sultan Süleyman the Magnificent, these regions came under Ottoman administration. When the Ottomans conquered this territory, there had not been any Armenian state for 470 years in the east and for 150 years in the south.

***

In fact, the Armenians were not the native people of Anatolia, they had probably come to Anatolia from Thrace towards the end of the VI th century BC. and had settled in Urartu as a mixture of the Thracic and Phrygian clans. The Armenians appearing as a Nordic-Alphin mixture have arisen as a result of the fusion of native and migrant Indo-Europeans. In other words, it is not a homogenous race. They started to use an alphabet after the acceptance of Christianity.

The places where Armenians settled have always been on the road connecting Asia to Europe; Caucasia to Anatolia and Caucasia to Syria. Due to the strategic and geographical status these places have always been the stage of struggle among the states dominating Anatolia, Persia and Caucasia. Consequently, the fate of the Armenian people has been determined by the territory they settled and lived.

***

As been stated before, when the Turks conquered Anatolia there was no independent Armenian state. Before the Turks conquered Anatolia, the Armenians were continuously the subject for struggle between Byzantine and Persian states and between Byzantine and Muslim states; they were deported for their difference in religious sect and for political reasons. However, during Ottoman administration the Armenians owned land and were free to use their own language and to belief in their own religion within the framework of Muslim law.

The non-Muslims in the places dominated by the Turks were subject to principles applied by Muslims to non-Muslims; but these principles were applied with great mercy and with a tolerance far beyond that century. They were free in their language, religion, beliefs and the relations among themselves. When Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror conquered İstanbul he recognized the Greek Patriarchate as the leader of the Christian society; and gave it a balancing status between this society and the state.

Under the framework of this status, the Christian societies found the opportunity to protect freely their religious and national identities. Especially when we take into consideration the situation in Europe during that century these can certainly be accepted as evidences of mercy and tolerance far beyond its century.

As it is known, the Muslims and Jews were not able to live in Spain after 1492 and they took refuge in Ottoman territory. In France, the St. Barthélemy massacre occurred in 1572. Europe tumulted in religious wars until 1648. Meanwhile, the non-Muslims were living in peace, comfort and security under the just administration of the Ottoman State.

After the Battle of Ankara in 1402 the Anatolian principalities split up while Rumelia, the population of which was mostly Christian in that period, kept faithful to the state and preferred the Ottoman administration to the Balkan administration. In 1461, Sultan Mehmet the Conqueror established both a Greek Patriarchate and an Armenian Patriarchate in İstanbul. (1)

During hundreds of years under the administration of the Ottoman State the Armenians had gained so much trust that they sometimes were appointed to important duties. In fact, everyone was able to be appointed to any post due to the Ottoman understanding of state which is accepting its people as one without discriminating people according to religion and race. The Armenians which were called ‘faithful people’ by the Ottoman State experienced undoubtedly the most harmonious and peaceful years during this period.

The Armenians were generally engaged with agriculture on their own land, local industry and small-sized trade in the East Anatolian villages and small towns; in the cities they were occupied with inland and foreign trade, jewelry, banking, contracting, and collecting of public revenues and lived in a better welfare than the Turks. The Armenian level of welfare did not cause any inconvenience among the Turks and the Moslims. Since the establishment of the Ottoman State, the Armenians lived side to side with the Turks in brotherhood and peace; and they had the opportunity of religious freedom within a boundless tolerance.

The Armenian people coalesced the most with the Turks in relation to the other minorities because they did not have a union in sect, they did not constitute the majority in the places they lived and they lived under the tolerant administration of the Turks. As a result, the Armenians have been the minority which adopted Turkish culture the most.

Due to their familiarity with Turkish culture they were appointed as civil officials at any post after the Greek Rebellion in 1821; and during the reign of Sultan Mahmut II they were permitted to carry the Sultan’s monogram on their kalpak as an evidence of their faithfulness. In 1839, after the Gülhane Hattı Hümâyûn (Imperial Edict), they were appointed to civil posts in the palace and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; and in 1856, after the Islahat Fermanı (Reform Edict) they were appointed as first rank civil officials such as governor, general governor, inspector, diplomat and even as minister.

Preceding the Ottoman-Russo War, there was no Armenian question. This question started when Russia occupied some Turkish cities and provoked the Armenians here against Bâbıâli for freedom by misusing them for its own ambitions. The Armenian question has arisen after the inclusion of articles in the Treaties of Ayastefanos and Berlin concerning reforms in places where Armenians live due to which the big powers started to interfere with the internal affairs of the Ottoman State. Since the Armenians were provoked with various promises, some bloody events have occurred. Among the reasons causing these events, the activities of the Protestant missionary have certainly been influential.

States like America, England and Russia, who seemed like having the aim to protect the rights of the Christian minorities living on Ottoman territory, provoked the Armenians for their own interest and abstained from informing the public opinion about the written material and letters expressing the truth about the situation of the Armenians and their treatment because these were opposing their interests and policies.

In fact, the Armenian question is part of the ‘Orient Question’. The big imperialistic European states which were called the Great Powers (France, England, Russia and Germany) supported intensively the movements of nationalism and separation, starting especially among the non-Muslims, in order to dissociate the Ottoman State according to their interests and tried to establish states in the Balkans under their influence. To realize this, the Russians protected the Orthodox, the French protected the Catholics and Austria protected the Balkan Catholics. Under the influence of the provocations of foreign powers and streams of nationalism, the people in the Balkans rebelled and as a result Greece, Serbia, Rumania and Karadakh were established and in 1860 Lebanon was recognized as an autonomous administration.

In the XIX th century, the non-Muslims had become both the objective and the means of the ‘Orient Question’, because the imperialistic policy had reached common points between the interests of the Big Powers and the interests of the non-Muslims. When the non-Muslims comprehended this fact, they accepted to volunteer as the real actors and provocative powers of the ‘Orient Question’. In summary, the ‘Orient Question’ has meant for the non-Muslim the dissociation of the Ottoman State and the realization of reforms on their advantage, by which they would be able to obtain concessions and privileges which will lead them to autonomy and independence. (2)

It should be known that the emergence of the Armenian question is not only caused by the social, cultural, economic, administrative and political status of the Armenians living on Ottoman territory; this question is based on an international imperialistic strategy, the power balance policy called "Orient Question" which has been created artificially. The term "Orient Question" which is included in the terminology of political history is used to express the efforts of the Western states to break down the Ottoman State.

The most extensive definition of the Orient Question in terms of political history of this century is as follows: All "... the historical conflicts arising from the desire of the big European states to gain economic and political influence and domination in the Ottoman State or to create reasons for its dissociation and to supply freedom for the various nations living under the Ottoman administration...". (3)

It should be known that the Armenian question, which has been created artificially by the West with plans at the disadvantage of the Ottoman State in a period when the political collapse of the Ottoman State accelerated, was based on the economic, intellectual, political, religious and cultural interests of Europe.

It would not be wrong to state that the reason for the Armenian people to sentence the Turkish state and the Turkish people with feelings of malice, hatred and revenge and to kill and wound them, is the fact that they are sacrificed to political plots prepared for Russian, English and French interests in which the Armenians believed without knowing the truth.(4)

The main reason for the occurrence of the Armenian question is the policy of Russia, England, France and America against the Ottoman State and the Armenians. It will be appropriate to state briefly the policies followed by these states.

The Effects of the Policy of Russia:

Russia, which had become an influential state in Europe during the reign of Czar Petro I (1682-1725), has always strongly desired to get hold of the Straits. Russia, which had also an excessive sympathy for the Balkans and which wanted either to get hold of these countries or to make them subject to its administration, established with this aim its consulates in the Balkan countries to organize these countries against the Ottoman State as a result of which they took up the role as protector of the Slavic-Orthodox union and its people. Russia did not neglect to take advantage of the confusion and instability in the region in order to apply its policy, and has made occur and expand the Greek Rebellion in 1827 and the Bosnia-Herzegovinan, Bulgarian and Serbian rebellions in 1875-1876. This policy of Russia which also aimed to obtain territory from the Ottoman State on behalf of the provoked regions was not always successful because from time to time it came into conflict with the interests of England and France. Here upon, Russia applied its policy to share the cake with the other states before acting against the Ottoman State.

Russia believed that by dividing Anatolian territory it would be able to achieve its goal to dominate the Mediterranean and the Middle East and to reach warm waters and for this purpose it tried to obtain the Erzurum-İskenderun Line where most Armenians were living. Thus the contact of Russia with the Armenian churches in the Ottoman State and its support to Armenian terrorism started.

Russia which tried to succeed its objectives regarding East Anatolia by the use of the Armenians who started to work for the services of the Czar and which used the Armenians on the front battle line in the war with Persia, attacked the Ottoman State with the new power it gained when East Armenia was appointed to Russia by the Türkmençay Agreement of 1828 and when the Persian Armenians joined this union. When 40.000 Armenians who migrated to Russia by the Edirne Agreement of 1829 wanted to establish an autonomous Armenia this was being refused then by Russia which had pretended to be the supporter of Armenians just in order to realize their desire on Ottoman territory.

Thus the Armenians, who had lost their citizenship in the Ottoman State, were often facing oppression and cruelty even for their most natural rights in Czardom Russia and met their due punishment for their betrayal.

The Effects of the Policy of England:

The reason for the interest of England in the Ottoman State and later in the Armenians is closely related to the fact that Russia as a powerful Black Sea state was constantly being moving to the south threatening English interest.

England's support to the Ottoman State in order to avoid Russia's development which threatened England's interests had continued from 1783 until the Ottoman-Russo war in 1877-1878.

Although England, which had separated Austria from the Russian alliance during the Ottoman - Russo War between 1787-1792, started to attack Russia by having Prussia taking its side after the French Revolution, it supported Russia during the wars between France and Russia.

Caning, the Prime Minister of England during that period, commented on England's opposing attitude against the Ottoman State during the rebellion of Greece as follows: "The aim of England's attitude is not to agree with Russia; it will be better that Greece, which definitely will gain its independence, will be indebted to England which is a friend state in the Mediterranean than being indebted to Russia".

While England supported the Ottoman State against the rebellion of Kavalalı Mehmed Ali Pasha, governor of Egypt, it had Sultan Mahmud II sign the "English Trade Agreement" in 1838 which caused great wounds in the politics and economy of the Ottoman State.

With this agreement the Ottoman State became an English open market after which the Ottomans were not able to avoid the Greek and the Armenians to gain power by taking advantage of this situation.

England refused the proposal of the Russian Czar Nikola II in 1853 to share the Ottoman State during the Crimea War. However, Europe's changing political structure in the 1870's, had changed England too and after the Ayastefanos and the Berlin Agreements were signed at the end of the Ottoman-Russo War between 1877 - 1878 England ceased to defend the integrity of Ottoman territory and took up the policy to break the Ottoman State down and to establish states on this territory dependent on England.

An important reason for the change of England's policy relating to the Ottoman State is that starting from 1880 the Armenian question gained importance in Europe.

The fact, that the Catholic people in the Ottoman State were under the protection of France and the Orthodox people were under the protection of Russia, made England increase the number of Protestant Armenians by having an article relating to freedom of conversion included in the Reform Ferman. Thus by the policy of protecting the Protestants, England provided the possibility to interfere in the internal affairs of the Ottoman State and because the Protestantism policy was mainly concerned with Armenian culture it has provoked the national feelings of the Armenians.

The Armenian question can be accepted as having begun during the Ottoman-Russo War between 1877-1878 when Russia occupied some cities in Anatolia and provoked the Armenians living there against the Ottoman State for independence.

England which understood that it could not oppose Russia's aggressive behavior against the Ottoman State and that it was unable to guard its own interest accepted de facto the Armenian question. It immediately took its first step; after threatening the Ottoman government it took Cyprus in order to use it as a base against Russia. Besides, England obtained a concession from the Ottoman State to make reforms in favour of the Christians living in the East Anatolian provinces as a result of which the Armenian question has become in fact the English question.

Before the Ottoman-Russo War, the Armenians had no intention to separate from the Ottoman State and to establish an individual state, in spite of this the Russians had included the Armenian question in the Ayastefanos Agreement. England, on the other hand, had included the Armenian question in the Cyprus Agreement without finding it necessary to ask the Armenians. England supported an independent Armenia because it thought that this would cause Russia difficulty and it would avoid the Ottoman empire to develop.

The Effects of the Policy of France:

The privilege of capitulation given to France in 1535 as a concession and favor by Sultan Süleyman the Magnificent started the first serious and friendly relationship between the two countries. This commercial and political relationship continued extensively with the capitulation of 1740. However, during the Second Besiege of Vienna in 1683, France helped Austria and clearly showed its attitude. The Egypt Cruise, where Napoleon Bonapart was defeated for the first time, has been the continuity of this situation. But during the wars between the Ottoman State and Russia, France tried to be a friend, nevertheless when agreeing with Russia in 1807 they showed again an attitude not suiting friendship.

France, which supported Kavalalı during the rebellion of Kavalalı Mehmed Ali Pasha, acted in accordance with to the Ottoman State during the Crimea war.

France has not been influential at the Berlin Congress in spite of its attendance because Germany had defeated France in 1870 and was deprived of political maneuvers and of influencing other states for a certain period. However, with the declaration of the Republic, France gained its previous role and started to support political struggles of various groups and to be their center for shelter. Meanwhile, they had undertaken the protection of the Catholics in the Ottoman empire and played an important role in the Holy Places Conflict which caused the Crimea war.

France which could not bear being defeated showed sympathy to Russia who had a dispute with Germany at the Berlin Congress in 1878 and after settling its disagreements with England, these three states spent together great effort to break down the Ottoman State. France had a quite active role in the plan to divide and break down the Ottoman State.

Between 1830 and 1921 France tried to protect the stability in the Middle East and the Mediterranean which had been put forward artificially just as the Armenian question; meanwhile France tried also to increase its political influence with the occupation of Anatolian territory. Especially after the Mondros Cease Fire was signed France developed its relations with the Armenians during the occupation of Anatolia and French occupation forces initiated occupation of Turkish territory with Armenian militants and organizations. Meanwhile, as it is known, the French supported in a great extent the Armenians during international negotiations.

Following the Sevres Agreement and the success of the Turkish War for Independence it is noticed that the Armenian-French relations gradually weakened.

After the Lausanne Agreement, France seemed to have eliminated the Armenian question from their foreign policy, but before half a century had passed in the 1970's France took side in favor of the Armenians when the Armenian question increased in intensity; and we regret to state that the French public opinion showed a silent attitude towards the assassinations of the Turkish bureaucrats.

As a result, the Ayastefanos Agreement, signed at the end of the Ottoman-Russo war between 1877-1878 which can be considered as the start of the Armenian question being a product of the policies followed by Russia-England and France, did not provide the Armenians the independence they wanted but they obtained the chance to be included in an international agreement dating 3 March 1878.

England, which saw that with the Ayastefanos Agreement the interests and role of Russia concerning the Ottoman State had increased, made an secret agreement with Russia in London on 30 May 1878 and with the approval of Austria it put on the agenda the Berlin Congress. Germany has also been very influential in having the Berlin Congress held between 13 June-13 July 1878 with the attendance of England, Russia, France, Austria, Italy, Germany and the Ottoman State. Although the Armenians hoped to obtain their rights relating to their independence, their proposals submitted to the Congress have not been taken into consideration and the Armenian question has been left to England. The 61 st article of the Congress is directly related to the Armenians and the 62 nd is indirectly related to them as it provides some rights to the Christians living under the administration of the Ottoman State; since the Armenians are Christians, this article is for their concern, too.

One of the main methods preferred by the Western states, to interfere with the internal affairs of the Ottoman State, to maintain their interests here and to provide mutually their stability, has been the reform activities which they demanded on behalf of the Christians under the Ottoman administration.

***

The Armenians, who founded some intriguing associations and parties and massacred Turkish population by causing events for various reasons due to their dream to establish an Armenian state in East Anatolia, collaborated with the enemy during the First World War when the soldiers were at the front, betrayed the state and attacked the weaponless Turks. Consequently, they forced the Ottoman State to take decision for deportation. It should be known that the deported Armenians are those who acted against the state. The Armenians keeping faithful to the state have never been deported.

All the needs, the security and the accommodation of the deported Armenians were provided. When the First World War was over, they were free to come back or not; those who wanted to come back were provided all kind of help and facilities. With the Treaty of Lausanne on 24 July 1923 Turkey accepted the status of minorities and gave the Armenians all the individual rights and freedom just like the Turks and since that date there has not been any problem with the Armenians living in Turkey. Armenians in Turkey, who were not misled by externally commanded organizations and who did not approve them, are now living in peace, welfare and religious freedom.

Our citizens of Armenian origin are under the high security of the state and they are free to use all their legal rights. As it has been in the past, they are the wealthy citizens of the country and are occupied in every profession. The Armenian citizens are praying in churches according to their own beliefs, are educated in their own schools and language, are preparing publications in their own language, and are continuing their social and cultural activities. To sum up, Armenian citizens are equally benefiting from all the rights given to the Turks.

***

The number of publications relating to the Armenians and Armenian issues in the world libraries is very high. Especially in this century, following the First and Second World War, authors emphasize the political interests of the countries they are a native of in their books written on behalf of the Armenians. Thus, the so-called scientific works are one-sided, full of political propaganda, ornamented with massacre stories, unrelated with the truth, biased, written with Armenian fanaticism, and misleading the world's public opinion.

In these so-called scientific works, there is enmity against Turkey and the Turks. Books, articles, theses and papers claimed to be written scientifically are far from being true, and are including feelings of Armenian hatred and revenge; and with this kind of publications the public opinion of the world is wanted to be turned against Turkey and the Turks; and the influential public opinions of some countries are imposed to believe in the existence of the Armenian question.

Because the social and political aspects of the Turkish-Armenian relations are in general not put forward in the Western countries on the basis of Turkish sources, especially first-hand archival sources, the works until the present are mostly one-sided and in opposition of the Turks. Meanwhile, it has become apparent that some records exist in the Public Record Office which has not been used by the Armenian historians up to now. These records show that the claims and propaganda relating to the genocide applied to the Armenians by the Turkish Government during the First World War are baseless and only a misleading campaign supported with some false records.

As it is known, İstanbul was occupied in 1918 by England and its confederates. So the Ottoman state and its bureaucracy were completely taken under control. During this occupation, the English have arrested about 150 Turkish authorities, politicians and scholars and have banished them to Malta. The English tried to accuse and sentence these scholars and sought evidence about their roles in Armenian events. However, in spite of all their efforts they could not bring out any record or information accusing Turkish authorities. Whereas, the Ottoman Archives, all the files of the state and all possibilities for listening witnesses were under their control as being the occupants. They also carried out such researches in the other cities they occupied. But they were not able to reach a result as they desired.

Thereupon, the English sought support from the American government. Since long there were American missioners and consular officials in the regions in which the events occurred. These people were following and reporting all the events. However, American authorities explained as an answer to English applications that there were not sufficient evidence and legal records. They also gave permission to the English to examine their files. But any accusing record or information about this subject could not be put forward. These historical facts are shown in the correspondence between the English Foreign Affairs and the representative in America in their archives. (5)

Another very important reality about this subject occurred recently.

In 1920 Armenians printed a photograph with text of a so-called coded telegram in a book published by a person called Andonian in Paris. In this telegram it has been emphasized that Talât Pasha, Minister for Home Affairs of that period, gave a direction to the Governer of Aleppo ordering the annihilation of Armenians. This fact has been used on the disadvantage of the Turks in the world’s agenda for a long time. During this time the Turkish Independence Struggle was continuing on intensively in Anatolia, thus nobody spent effort to examine such publications and to respond to them.

However, it has been brought out in a work(6) published in 1983 that the above mentioned so-called telegram has never existed and that the date, number and signatures on it were counterfeit and that the world’s agenda has been deceived with false records for a long time.

***

The Ottoman State has been able to have its people live in peace and welfare thanks to its tolerance being one of the most important features of the Turkish-Islam state tradition and not any other state in history has achieved this. It has continued this status for many centuries without applying politically to indoctrination, that is methods and systems for socialization, and without assimilating minorities. The loyalty of the minorities to the regime and the state was the most important and maybe the only condition of the Ottoman policy they wanted to be conferred.

It is worth to consider the words of Martin Luther, a German theologian and reformist initiating Europe's greatest reform, during a speech to the German people saying: "O Germans, let the Turks invade Germany. The Turks will show you equity and justice."(7) The Italian philosopher and writer Tommaso Campanella who had developed the inherited thought of Renaissance to its limits, expresses in his important work entitled "The Sun Country" (Civitas Solis) the importance the Turkish people gave to human rights as follows:

"I long for a ‘Sun Country’. There should be no night in this country and the people should not know what the concept of darkness means. Is it possible to find "The Sun Country" on earth? The existence of the Turks who do not interfere to freedom of thought and conscience makes me believe that - at least tomorrow - such a country will exist. Since the courageous and just Turks exist, since there is a nation which does not imprison thought or chain love for the truth... Why should a ‘Sun Country’ not exist tomorrow, a country where only the truth, justice and freedom dominates?"(8)

When examining the Ottoman centuries throughout history, one will be able to see the just and tender administration in every period of the Ottomans. The Turkish state tradition has always been just and equal. Here the following is intended to be said. The Turks have always behaved just, reasonably, honest and tenderly against the minorities and people under their patronage and has never followed a colonializing policy.

Turks have always, in every period, and wherever they have gone been rescuing people, providing justice, establishing civilizations and bringing freedom. The Turkish archives are the living evidence of this.

During all these years very few answers have been given to the various propaganda against us, but on the other hand a couple of people, so-called scholars having no morality of science are dealing with the Turkish-Armenian relations during history only from one side and are misusing this constantly at the disadvantage of Turks and are increasing their activities each passing day and they continued to carry a grudge. The silence of the Turkish people arising from the dignity of just people has been interpreted as the silence of guilty people.

It should be known that ignoring the cruelty to which the Turks have been subject to throughout history will kill the entity of right and justice.

It should be a scientific obligation and a criteria for morality to bring the groups and states conditioned with Armenian propaganda and clamor face to face with the truth and for this reason to reveal on the basis of archival records the inner aspects of the disagreements between the Turks and the Armenians and Armenian terrorism which is intentionally being continued for centuries.

Our religious beliefs, our historical honour and our nobility refrain the Turkish people to have blood feuds, to murder and to take revenge; however revealing the truth is a national and human duty and responsibility.

***

We see that the Armenian question revives after the 1950's although it had decreased after the Lausanne Agreement. The emergence of new military pacts after the Second World War and Turkey's place in these pacts has, without doubt, caused this revival. The spread of communism in the East European countries patronized by Russia after their occupation following the Second World War has been a source of threat for the West European countries and the United States of America or, in fact, the free world.

In order to stop the Soviet expansion, these countries established the NATO military pact; in return Soviet Russia established the Warsaw Military Pact together with its East European allies Rumania, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary and Bulgaria. Turkey who was threatened by Soviet Russia entered NATO after the Second World War.

Turkey's entrance to NATO made Soviet Russia take some measures to demolish Turkey's internal stability and its foreign esteem. Under this framework, the Armenian question revived in the 1950's. The 1960's are the years when this conflict was organized and the demand and dreams to establish Great Armenia were put forward. The 1970's are the years when Armenian violence and terrorism towards Turkey started.

Behind the Armenian ambitions and Armenian terrorism towards Turkey and the Turkish aspects lies the foreign political interests towards Turkey of some countries from the viewpoint of international political balances. But since long, time has come for these countries to give up their persistence to continue their tradition of foreign policy and to show a policy in which international moral aspects are dominant.

Anyhow, it should be known that the West and the East need Turkey more than ever in order to maintain the basic balances in the Balkans, the Middle East, Caucasia and Middle Asia. Turkey's importance, emphasize and influence in basic balances in the center of a region with a high geopolitical and geostrategical importance and value surrounded by the Middle East, Caucasia and the Balkans within a rapidly changing and developing universal political conjunction has appeared undeniably.

The reasons for the present conflicts between the Azerbaijanis and the Armenians are based on the aim and imagination of the Armenians to establish Great Armenia after getting hold of Azerbaijani territory. The Armenian terror, occurring on Azerbaijani Turkish territory in a period when human rights have taken the first place on the world's agenda, has marked history eternally.

***

Armenian terrorism has sentenced unforgivably their supporters in front of all the people on the world and human history as it always has been before.

The remains of Turkish martyrs due to cruel massacres are found in collective graves found as a result of investigations carried out in East Anatolia. This reveals how false and made-up the Armenian massacre claims are, the claims which are brought forth from time to time. Moreover, this work(9), including records selected from a rich collection relating to the Armenian Question which are being preserved in the Prime Ministry Ottoman Archives, is definitely revealing, on the basis of records, the falsity of the claims put forward until the present.

The 3 rd, 4 th and 5 th record in this work explains the massacre of 30.000 Turkish men killed by the Armenians due to the provocation of the Russians and also the cruelty and violence applied to Ottoman prisoners of war. As it can be noticed from the 17 th record, the Meclis-i Vükelâ (cabinet) took decision for deportation because the Armenians collaborated with the Russians and their commitment of massacring weaponless Muslim Turks. It is also clear from the same decision that the goods and lives of the Armenians have been secured.

The records numbered 29, 34, 35, 46, 50, 64, 66, 69, 81, 102, 149, 156, 210, 213, 230, 233, 246, 249, 259, 266, and 267 state that every effort has been shown to secure the lives and goods of the deported Armenians. However, crimes committed against Armenians during the deportation have not been left unpunished; as the records numbered 143, 144, 153, 219, 220, 223, 247, 248, 253, 260, 261, 265 and 270 show, criminals have been punished. Moreover, efforts shown for food and accommodation supply for the Armenians can be shown in the records numbered 62, 63, 87, 135, 145, 151, 152, 154, 155, 173, 178, 179, 191, 197, 203, 213, 224, 228, 242, 251, and 256. Besides, help provided to Armenians can be shown in the 224 th, 227 th, 231 st, and 254 th record. Exemption of taxes and postponement of debts for the deported Armenians is shown in the 24 th, 80 th, 255 th, and 272 nd record. It is clear from the records numbered 45, 47, 79, 82, 89, 91, 92, 95, 96, 182, 189, 192, 212, 225, 226, 230, 235, 243, 250, 252, and 262 that homeless children and women were placed in orphanages and other secure places. Finally, it is possible to see in the records numbered 27, 29, 59, 76, 83, 84, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 95, 104, 141, 142, 148, 164, 165, 169, and 172 that innocent Armenians were not deported.

***

This work includes 272 records relating to the deportation between 1915 and 1920. It has three main parts.

The first part is the introduction explaining not only the events causing the deportation during the Turco-Armenian relations throughout history but also the deportation event itself. The second part gives the transcriptions and the summaries of the records. It also gives the bibliography of sources utilized for the preparation of the index and the introduction.

In this part first the sequence number of the records, next a heading appropriate to the record content and finally the summary of the records written in italic between square parantheses are given. Beneath the summary first the date according to Muslim calendar, next the date according to Christian calendar is shown. After the summary, the transcriptions of the records in sequence of date are taking place. In transcribing the records, droppings of some letters and syllables and the number 1 used for thousand in dates are completed and shown in square parantheses.

In the third part, there are the photocopies of the records. The sequence numbers used for the transcriptions are taken into consideration. Again first the sequence number of the record, right beneath it the heading giving the subject of the record and finally the photocopies of the records are given. Under each photocopy there is information on the fond where the record belongs to in the Ottoman Archives of the Prime Ministry General Directorate of the State Archives and the identity part stating the record number. In the case of records having other records as annexes, the identity part is written below the last record.

The Prime Ministry General Directorate of the State Archives has aimed to provide sufficient and efficient information on this subject especially for foreign researchers by publishing an English version of the Preface, Foreword, Introduction and Record Summaries of the book called “Armenians in Ottoman Records” (Osmanlı Belgelerinde Ermeniler). Those who want detailed information on the subject or who want to examine the original records and their transcriptions should make use of the Turkish edition of this work.

The Prime Ministry General Directorate of the State Archives has besides this work published a documentary work of two volumes called “History of Armenian Events” by Hüseyin Nâzım Pasha, the Minister of Gendarme during the reign of Sultan Abdülhamid II; and has opened to research a series of catalogues called “Armenians in Ottoman Records”

Also, General Directorate of the State Archives has published the first volume of the work titled “Armenian Violence and Massacre in the Caucasus and Anatolia Based on Archives” which will put forward the events pertaining to the period between 1906-1922 and which will consist of totally four volumes.

***

Especially since 1974, one of the subjects engaging Turkey is Armenian terrorism and the well-known Armenian claims constituting the basis for it. These made-up claims are brought up as material for internal and external politics by states declaring to be a friend or an enemy of Turkey. As it will be appreciated true information about history depends on first - hand sources or archival records. Without archives history cannot be written and the real aspects of the events cannot be made known.

It does not suit to the objectivity required by science of history and to scientific objectivity to write histories, to decide on a certain period and to evaluate a period or events based on hypotheses without using and knowing archives. The social and political aspects of Turkish-Armenian relations are in the western countries not based on Turkish sources, especially on first-hand archival sources; thus the publications until the present are in general one-sided and always opposing the Turks. Some researchers of Armenian origin and so-called scholars supported by Armenians have been given permission to carry out research in the Turkish archives. As they could not find any documents confirming the Armenian thesis in the Turkish archives, they intentionally claim that the so-called existing documents were not given them. So they try to gain supporters from the scientific circles and declare themselves as if they are right with some provocative attitudes such as disseminating these claims in the media close to them.

Armenian question, in the past, was an artificial event which imperialistic powers and terror organizations, supported and encouraged by these powers, tried to create in spite of our Armenian citizens. But, today efforts are spent to put on the same play in more inconsistent conditions. This question is stirred up continuously by the powers wanting Turkey to demolish and to piece and hoping benefit from Turkey’s weakness.

Being parallel to the political conjuncture and to the situation of Turkey’s relations, this subject seems to take place in the agenda by keeping its actuality. It can never be valid to ignore this subject and not to respond to the opposite activities, especially the intentional publications on this subject. The most sound and realistic way of withstanding against such kind of destructive provocations and international intrigues is to bring out the historical facts by basing upon the archival records, to show in the light of archival records that the Armenians who showed their cruelty are the real tyrants, and to give an end to the one-sided ideas on this subject.

Regarding the so-called Armenian question, it is definitely necessary and obligatory to inform the people interested in this subject, especially the world's public opinion about the truth of the Armenian question and to reveal with all openness Armenian terror which has lasted for years.

I congratulate the personnel of the General Directorate of the State Archives Directorate of Ottoman Archives who have spent effort in the preparation of these archival records for publication which will fill in a big gap in this field.

On this occasion, I would like to thank the Prime Ministry Undersecretary Ali Naci TUNCER and the Deputy Undersecretary Muzaffer TUTAR who supported and encouraged us in our activities. It should be known that this work prepared objectively on the basis of records in the Prime Ministry Ottoman Archives does not carry any negative intention or thought. The aim of publishing this work is to have the world understand and evaluate from the Turkish point of view the origin of the Armenian question and terrorism, and the basic aspects and powers behind this conflict.

We wish that this work will be helpful in revealing the historical truth in the light of science and that it will be useful in the work of those interested.

[1] For more information on Turco-Armenian relations see: Abdurrahman Çaycı, ‘Türk- Ermeni İlişkilerinde Gerçekler’ (Facts on Turco-Armenian Relations), Symposium on Turkey’s Problems under the Framework of Historical Developments, Ankara, 8-9 March 1990, pp. 75-114; Also see: Nejat Göyünç, Osmanlı İdaresinde Ermeniler (Armenians under Ottoman Administration), Istanbul, 1983; Sadi Koçaş, Tarih Boyunca Ermeniler ve Türk-Ermeni İlişkileri (Armenians and Turco-Armenian Relations Throughout History), Ankara, 1967; Esat Uras, Tarihte Ermeniler ve Ermeni Meselesi (The Armenians in History and the Armenian Question), Istanbul, 1987; Salahi Ramsdan Sonyel, The Ottoman Armenians, London, 1987; Azmi Süslü, Ermeniler ve 1915 Tehcir Olayı (The Armenians and the Deportation Event of 1915), Ankara, 1990.

[2] For more information see: Bayram Kodaman, ‘Şark Meselesi ve Tarihi Gelißimi’ (The Orient Question and its Historical Development), Symposium on Turkey’s Problems within Historical Developments, Ankara, 8-9 March 1990, pp. 59-63; Bayram Kodaman, ‘Ermeni Meselesinin Do¤uß Sebepleri’ (Reasons for Emergence of the Armenian Question), TŸrk KŸltŸrŸ, 219, March-April 1981, pp. 240-249; Also see: M.S. Anderson, The Eastern Question 1774-1923, New York, 1968; Enver Ziya Karal, Osmanlİ Tarihi (Ottoman History), V.C., 4 th edition, Ankara, 1983, pp. 203-204; Edward M. Earle, Turkey: Great Powers and Bagdad Railway, New York, 1966, pp. 9-28.

[3] Cevdet Küçük, 'Şark Meselesi Hakkında Önemli Bir Vesika' (An Important Record on the Orient Question), İ.Ü. Edebiyat Fakültesi Tarih Dergisi, No. 32 (March 1979, 607-638 pp.; Erdal İlter, 'Ermeni Meselesinin Perspektifi ve Zeytûn İsyânları' (The Perspective of the Armenian Question and the Zeytûn Rebellions) (1780-1880), Ankara, 1988.

[4] Neşide Kerem Demir, Bir Şehid Anasına Tarihin Söyledikleri: Türkiye'nin Ermeni Meselesi (What History Tells a Mother of a Martyr: Turkey's Armenian Question). 3 rd edition, Ankara. 1982.

[5] English Foreign Affairs (Foreign Office= F.O.)

- F.O. 371/6500/E.3552- From the Minister Curzon to the Ambassador Geddes in Washington. Code tel. London, 31.3.1921, No. 176. “Not Distributed”

- F.O. 371/6503/E.6311- From Geddes to Curzon. Code tel. Washington, 2.6.1921, No. 374. “Not Distributed”

- ibid., Note from Curzon to Geddes. London, 16.6.1921, No.E.6311/132/44.

- F.O. 371/6504/E-8519-Note from Craigie to Curzon. Washington, 13.7.1921, No. 722

- F.O. 371/6502/E.8545- Note from the English Attorney Generalship to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. London, 20.5.1921.

- ibid., Note from the English Foreign Affairs to the Attorney Generalship. London, 31.5.1921.

- F.O. 371/6504/E.8745- Note from the English Attorney Generalship to the Foreign Affairs. London, 29.7.1921. Upon this note, the authority of the Foreign Affairs said “According to this note, we have almost no chance to sentence (the banished)… We understood that the American Government cannot provide us any evidential support.”

[6] Şinasi Orel-Süreyya Yuca: Ermenilerce Talât Pa?a’ya Atfedilen Telgrafların Gerçek Yüzü. Ankara, 1983; The Talat Pasha-Telegrams-Historical Fact or Armenian Fiction. by Şinasi Orel - Süreyya Yuca. Published by K. Rü?ti and Brother (Cyprus). O.U.P. Printing House, 1983.

[7] Neşide Kerem Demir, ibid., p. 28.

[8] Neşide Kerem Demir, ibid., p. 28.

[9] For the original publication of this work see: Osmanlı Belgelerinde Ermeniler (1915-1920) (Armenians in Ottoman Records). Ankara, 1994, XXXIX+627 p.

http://www.karabakh-doc.azerall.info/ru/