I would like to know about your political
stand in the matter of Armenian genocide. Up till now the Turkish government is stubbornly refusing to accept the history.
I think if
the genocide was condemned and the the truth was revealed no
other nations ever tried to do massacres like that in Germany during
ww2 then and now in Bosnia, Kosovo, Kashmir, Palestine ..... Please I
would like to receive your frank answer.
The Turkish - Doenme led - genocide against the Armenians was
carried out as a dry run or prelude to the German Holocaust. As we
now know, from British Embassy records from the period, the Zionist
Doenme (Salonica converts from Judaism to Islam, for details see
Jewlsh Freemasons Toppled Caliphate
and Dajjals
, Donmehs and Extra - Terrestrials) took over
Turkey in July 1908. Therefore, as with Russia, the entire
administration of the former Ottoman Empire, was Zionist controlled
from that day to this. Whilst in Russia from 1905 under Kerenski's
Judeo-Masonic government, these experiments in mass extermination
- like in Palestine - were inspired and led by Zionists. As we now
know,
even 168 senior German officers including the head of the Luftwaffe -
Milch - were Jewish. So - as with the Moscow Purge - one set of Jews
are killing off another set of Jews. The Armenian massacre perpetrated
by the Turkish government of the time is to be condemned, but the
blame cannot be put upon Muslims or Islam.
Follow-Up
Posted 18th January 2003
Dear friends,
I read the answer
you gave to, "Armenian Massacres (23 -June -
2002) " and I as an Armenian, was extremely pleased with the
answer you gave because it was very accurate and true. I also know
for a fact that Turks and Armenians lived most harmoniously in the
Ottoman Empire, that is, until the Jews came from Spain, saw this
paradise and wanted it for themselves.
"The
Armenian massacre perpetrated by the Turkish government of the time
is to be condemned, but the blame cannot be put upon Muslims or
Islam."
I fully agree as
do many other Armenians (although I would prefer if you would use
the correct term "genocide" instead of
"massacre"). The genocide committed was under the guise of
Islam by these Dunmeh Jews who professed Islam openly but practiced Judaism
in secrecy.
I am told that
during the time of the Armenian Genocide, Islamic religious leaders
had banned Turks from Mecca because the atrocities they were committing
upon the defenseless people was against the teachings of Islam. If
this is true (as I have no reason to believe it not to be) can you
please tell me what you know about this banning of Turks.
It is also a well
known fact, that many Armenians were saved by Arabs and Moslems such
as the Syrians and that is why there are so many Armenians in
countries such as Syria, Lebanon, Egypt etc. Plus the fact that the
Turks killed many Arabs also, is something very telling. I am
presently doing some research regarding the Jewish
involvement/responsibility in the Armenian Genocide, and if it's not
too much trouble, I would appreciate any information you have
regarding Talaat Pasha (and or other Turkish government and/or
military leaders of the time), who I am told was a Jew but I have
only limited information on it. As I have also been informed that
many "Germans" (Turkey's ally at the time) were actually Jews
and many of these Jews who were generals in the German army and many
were stationed in Turkey at the time. If you have any information
regarding these "Germans", such as their names, position
etc, it would be very helpful in putting the blame where it really
lies.
We have no
information on a ban on Turks going to Makkah. The presence of Jews
in the German army up to the highest level is, however, well
documented in Bryan Mark Rigg's book "Hitler's
Jewish Soldiers". For more on the Donme (Turkish
crypto-Jews) see the chapter Carved
Turkey in David Pidcock's book "Satanic Voices Ancient and
modern".
Follow-Up
Posted 27th April 2003
Below is a
Turkish reply sent to us as a response to the discussion on the
Armenian genocide.
Please note:
We have published this material for information only with respect to
the original debate and none of its contents has been specifically
checked or endorsed by the party.
Armenian
Allegations of Genocide
The
Issue and the Facts
The
Issue: Whether within the events leading to the collapse of the
Ottoman Empire genocide was perpetrated against Armenian Ottoman
citizens in Eastern Anatolia.
The
Ottoman Empire ruled over all of Anatolia and significant parts of
Europe, North Africa, the Caucasus and Middle East for over 700
hundred years. Lands once Ottoman dominions today comprise more than
30 independent nations.
A
century of ever-increasing conflict, beginning roughly in 1820 and
culminating with the founding of the Republic of Turkey in 1923,
characterized the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman
Empire participated in no fewer than a dozen named wars, nearly all
to the detriment of the empire and its citizens. The empire
contracted against an onslaught of external invaders and internal
nationalist independence movements. In this context -- an imperiled
empire waging and losing battles on remote and disparate fronts,
grasping to continue a reign of over 700 years -- must the tragic
experience of the Ottoman Armenians of Eastern Anatolia be
understood. For during these waning days of the Ottoman Empire did
millions die, Muslim, Jew, and Christian alike.
Yet
Armenian Americans have attempted to extricate and isolate their
history from the complex circumstances in which their ancestors were
embroiled. In so doing, they describe a world populated only by
white-hatted heroes and black-hatted villains. The heroes are always
Christian and the villains are always Muslim. Infusing history with
myth, Armenian Americans vilify the Republic of Turkey, Turkish
Americans, and ethnic Turks worldwide. Armenian Americans bent on
this prosecution choose their evidence carefully, omitting all
evidence that tends to exonerate those whom they presume guilty,
ignoring important events and verifiable accounts, and sometimes
relying on dubious or prejudiced sources and even falsified
documents. Though this portrayal is necessarily one-sided and
steeped in bias, the Armenian American community presents it as a
complete history and unassailable fact.
_Relevance:
The truth demands that every side of a story be told. Fundamental
freedoms enshrined in the U.S. Constitution protect those who choose
to challenge the Armenian American view.
To
oppose Armenian American orthodoxy on this issue has become risky.
Any attempt to challenge the credibility of witnesses, or the
authenticity of documents, or to present evidence that some of the
claimed victims were responsible for their own fate is either wholly
squelched or met with accusations of genocide denial. Moreover, any
attempt to demonstrate the suffering and needless death of millions
of innocent non-Christians enmeshed in the same events as the
Anatolian Armenians is greeted with sneers, as if to say that some
lives are inherently more valuable than others and that one faith is
more deserving than another. The lack of real debate, enforced with
a heavy hand by Armenian Americans, ensures that any consideration
of what genuinely occurred nearly a century ago in Eastern Anatolia
will utterly fail as a search for the truth.
Ultimately,
whether to blindly accept the Armenian American portrayal is an
issue of fundamental fairness and the most cherished of American
rights -- free speech. Simply put, in America every person has the
opportunity to tell his or her story. Armenian Americans possess the
right to promote and celebrate their heritage and even to discuss
ancient grievances. However, Armenian Americans seek to deny these
very rights to others. This is proven by the punitive nature and
sheer volume of legislation proposed in the state and federal
legislatures, the one-sided curricula proposed to state boards of
education, and by the vast sums of money and energy devoted to this
cause. Together, these efforts only increase acrimony and
antagonism.
The
complete story of the vast suffering of this period has not yet been
written. When that story is told, the following facts must not be
forgotten.
_FACT
1: Demographic studies prove that prior to World War I, fewer
than 1.5 million Armenians lived in the entire Ottoman Empire. Thus,
allegations that more than 1.5 million Armenians from eastern
Anatolia died must be false.
Figures
reporting the total pre-World War I Armenian population vary widely,
with Armenian sources claiming far more than others. British, French
and Ottoman sources give figures of 1.05-1.50 million. Only certain
Armenian sources claim a pre-war population larger than 1.5 million.
Comparing these to post-war figures yields a rough estimate of
losses. Historian and demographer, Dr. Justin McCarthy of the
University of Louisville, calculates the actual losses as slightly
less than 600,000. This figure agrees with those provided by British
historian Arnold Toynbee, by most early editions of the Encyclopedia
Britannica, and approximates the number given by Monseigneur Touchet,
a French missionary, who informed the Oeuvre d'Orient in February
1916 that the number of dead is thought to be 500,000. Boghos Nubar,
head of the Armenian delegation at the Paris Peace Conference in
1920, noted the large numbers who survived the war. He declared that
after the war 280,000 Armenians remained in the Anatolian portion
of the occupied Ottoman Empire while 700,000 Armenians had emigrated
to other countries.
Clearly
then, a great portion of the Ottoman Armenians were not killed as
claimed and the 1.5 million figure should be viewed as grossly
erroneous. Each needless death is a tragedy. Equally tragic are lies
meant to inflame hatred.
_FACT
2: Armenian losses were few in comparison to the over 2.5
million Muslim dead from the same period.
Reliable
statistics demonstrate that slightly less than 600,000 Anatolian
Armenians died during the war period of 1912-22. Armenians indeed
suffered a terrible mortality. But one must likewise consider the
number of dead Muslims and Jews. The statistics tell us that more
than 2.5 million Anatolian Muslims also perished. Thus, the years
1912-1922 constitute a horrible period for humanity, not just for
Armenians.
The
numbers do not tell us the exact manner of death of the citizens of
Anatolia, regardless of ethnicity, who were caught up in both an
international war and an intercommunal struggle. Documents of the
time list intercommunal violence, forced migration of all ethnic
groups, disease, and, starvation as causes of death. Others died as
a result of the same war-induced causes that ravaged all peoples
during the period.
_FACT
3: Certain oft-cited Armenian American evidence is of diminished
value, having been derived from dubious and prejudicial sources.
Armenian
Americans purport that the wartime propaganda of the enemies of the
Ottoman Empire constitutes objective evidence. Ambassador Henry
Morgenthau, who is frequently quoted by Armenian Americans, visited
the Ottoman Empire with political, not humanitarian aims. His
correspondence with President Wilson reveals his intent was to
uncover or manufacture news that would goad the U.S. into joining
the war. Given that motive, Morgenthau sought to malign the Ottoman
Empire, an enemy of the Triple Entente. Morgenthau’s research and
reporting relied in large part on politically motivated
Armenians;
his primary aid, translator and confidant was Arshag Schmavonian,
his secretary was Hagop Andonian. Morgenthau openly professed that
the Turks were an inferior race and possessed "inferior
blood." Thus, his accounts can hardly be considered
objective.
One
ought to compare the wartime writings of Morgenthau and the
oft-cited Gen. J.G. Harbord to the post-war writings of Rear Admiral
Mark L. Bristol, U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Turkey 1920 -
1926. In a March 28, 1921 letter he writes,
"Reports
are being freely circulated in the United States that the Turks
massacred thousands of Armenians in the Caucasus. Such reports are
repeated so many times it makes my blood boil. The Near East Relief
have the reports from Yarrow and our own American people which show
absolutely that such Armenian reports are absolutely false. The
circulation of such false reports in the United States, without
refutation, is an outrage and is certainly doing the Armenians more
harm than good. … Why not tell the truth about the Armenians in
every way?"
_FACT
4: The Armenian deaths do not constitute genocide.
The
totality of evidence thus far uncovered by historians tells a grim
story of serious inter-communal conflict, perpetrated by both
Christian and Muslim irregular forces, complicated by disease,
famine, and many other of war’s privations. The evidence does not,
however, describe genocide.
A.
The Armenians took arms against their own government. Their violent
political aims, not their race, ethnicity or religion, rendered them
subject to relocation.
Armenian
Americans ignore the dire circumstances that precipitated the
enactment of a measure as drastic as mass relocation. Armenians
cooperated with Russian invaders of Eastern Anatolia in wars in
1828, 1854, and 1877. Between 1893 and 1915 Ottoman Armenians in
eastern Anatolia rebelled against their government -- the Ottoman
government -- and joined Armenian revolutionary groups, such as the
notorious Dashnaks and Hunchaks. They armed themselves and
spearheaded a massive Russian invasion of eastern Anatolia. On
November 5, 1914, the President of the Armenian National Bureau in
Tblisi declared to Czar Nicholas II, "From all countries
Armenians are hurrying to enter the ranks for the glorious Russian
Army, with their blood to serve the victory of Russian arms. … Let
the Russian flag wave freely over the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus."
Armenian treason is also plainly documented in the November 1914
issue of the Hunchak Armenian [Revolutionary] Gazette, published in
Paris! . In a call to arms it exhorted,
"The
entire Armenian Nation will join forces -- moral and material, and
waving the sword of Revolution, will enter this World conflict ...
as comrades in arms of the Triple Entente, and particularly Russia.
They will cooperate with the Allies, making full use of all
political and revolutionary means for the final
victory...."
Boghos
Nubar addressed a letter to the Times of London on January 30, 1919
confirming that the Armenians were indeed belligerents in World War
I. He stated with pride,
"In
the Caucasus, without mentioning the 150,000 Armenians in the
Russian armies, about 50,000 Armenian volunteers under Andranik,
Nazarbekoff, and others not only fought for four years for the cause
of the Entente, but after the breakdown of Russia they were the only
forces in the Caucasus to resist the advance of the
Turks...."
One
of those who answered the Armenian call to arms was Gourgen Yanikian
who, as a teenager, joined the Russians to fight the Ottoman
government, and who as an elderly man, on January 27, 1973,
assassinated two Turkish diplomats in Santa Barbara, California.
B.
Logic and evidence controvert the allegation of genocide.
1.
No logic can reconcile the two positions that Armenian Americans
promote. Eminent historian Bernard Lewis, speaking to the Israeli
daily Ha’aretz on January 23, 1998, expanded on this notion,
"The
Armenians want to benefit from both worlds. On the one hand, they
speak with pride of their struggle against Ottoman despotism, while
on the other hand, they compare their tragedy to the Jewish
Holocaust. I do not accept this. I do not say that the Armenians did
not suffer terribly. But I find enough cause for me to contain their
attempts to use the Armenian massacres to diminish the worth of the
Jewish Holocaust and to relate to it instead as an ethnic
dispute." (translation)
2.
None of the Ottoman orders commanding the relocation of Armenians,
which have been reviewed by historians to date, orders killings. To
the contrary, they order Ottoman officials to protect relocated
Armenians.
3.
Where Ottoman control was weakest Armenian relocatees suffered most.
The stories of the time give many examples of columns of hundreds of
Armenians guarded by as few as two Ottoman gendarmes. When local
Muslims attacked the columns, Armenians were robbed and killed. It
must be remembered that these Muslims had themselves suffered
greatly at the hands of Armenians and Russians. In the words of U.S.
Ambassador Mark Bristol, "While the Dashnaks [Armenian
revolutionaries] were in power they did everything in the world to
keep the pot boiling by attacking Kurds, Turks and Tartars; [and] by
committing outrages against the Moslems …."
Where
Ottoman control was strong, Armenians went unharmed. In Istanbul and
other major western Anatolian cities, large populations of Armenians
remained throughout the war. In these areas Ottoman power was
greatest and genocide would have been easiest to carry out. By
contrast, during World War II, the Jews of Berlin were killed, their
synagogues defiled. The Armenians of Istanbul lived through World
War I, their churches open.
C.
The Armenian Allegation of Genocide Fails the Minimum Standards of
Proof Required by the 1948 United Nations Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
The
term "genocide" did not exist prior to 1944. The term was
subsequently defined quite specifically by the 1948 United Nations
Convention on the Prevention of the Crime of Genocide. This high
crime is now recognized by most nations, including the Republic of
Turkey.
The
standard of proof in establishing the crime of genocide is
formidable given the severity of the crime, the opportunity for
overlap with other crimes, and the stigma of being charged with or
found guilty of the crime. While presenting the Convention for
ratification, the Secretary General of the U.N. emphasized that
genocide is a crime of "specific intent," requiring
conclusive proof that members of a group were targeted simply
because they were members of that group. The Secretary General
further cautioned that those merely sharing political aims are not
protected by the convention.
Under
this standard of proof, the Armenian American claim of genocide
fails. First, no direct evidence has been discovered demonstrating
that any Ottoman official sought the destruction of the Ottoman
Armenians as such. Second, Ottoman Armenian Dashnak and Hunchak
guerrillas and their civilian accomplices admittedly organized
political revolutionary groups and waged war against their own
government. Under these circumstances, it was the Ottoman
Armenians’ violent political alliance with the Russian forces, not
their ethnic or religious identity, which rendered them subject to
the relocation.
A
recent comment on the U.N. position was rendered by, U.N. spokesman
Farhan Haq on October 5, 2000 when he confirmed that the U.N. has
not approved or endorsed a report labeling the Armenian experience
as genocide.
_FACT
5: The British convened the Malta Tribunals to try Ottoman
officials for crimes against Armenians. All of the accused were
acquitted.
The
Peace Treaty of Sevres, which was imposed upon the defeated Ottoman
Empire, required the Ottoman government to hand over to the Allied
Powers people accused of "massacres." Subsequently, 144
high Ottoman officials were arrested and deported for trial by the
British to the island of Malta. The principal informants to the
British High Commission in Istanbul leading to the arrests were
local Armenians and the Armenian Patriarchate. While the deportees
were interned on Malta, the British appointed an Armenian scholar,
Mr. Haig Khazarian, to conduct a thorough examination of documentary
evidence in the Ottoman, British, and U.S. Archives to substantiate
the charges. Access to Ottoman records was unfettered as the British
and French occupied and controlled Istanbul at the time.
Khazarian’s corps of investigators revealed an utter lack of
evidence demonstrating that Ottoman officials either sanctioned or
encouraged killings of Armenians.
At
the conclusion of the investigation, the British Procurator General
determined that it was "improbable that the charges would be
capable of proof in a court of law," exonerated and released
all 144 detainees -- after two years and four months of detention
without trial. No compensation was ever paid to the detainees.
_FACT
6: Despite the verdicts of the Malta Tribunals, Armenian
terrorists have engaged in a vigilante war that continues today.
In
1921, a secret Armenian network based in Boston, named Nemesis, took
the law into its own hands and hunted down and assassinated former
Ottoman Ministers Talaat Pasha and Jemal Pasha as well as other
Ottoman officials. Following in Nemesis’ footsteps, during the
1970’s and 1980’s, the Armenian terrorist groups, Armenian
Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA) and Justice
Commandos for the Armenian Genocide (JCAG), committed over 230 armed
attacks, killing 71 innocent people, including 31 Turkish diplomats,
and seriously wounding over 520 people in a campaign of blood
revenge.
Most
recently, Mourad Topalian, former Chairman of the Armenian National
Committee of America, was tried and convicted in federal court in
Ohio of terrorist crimes associated with bombings in New York and
Los Angles and with the attempted assassination of the Turkish
Honorary Consul General in Philadelphia. The Armenian youths whom
Topalian directed and who conducted these attacks were recruited
from the Armenian Youth Federation and Armenian Revolution
Federation in Boston.
_FACT
7: The archives of many nations ought to be carefully and
thoughtfully examined before concluding whether genocide
occurred.
Armenian
Americans make frequent reference to the archives of many nations
while carefully avoiding calls for the examination of those
archives. They know that no evidence of genocide has been found to
date, as was the case in the Malta Tribunals. They also know that
the national archives of several nations, including the U.S., speak
primarily of the deaths of Armenians because the recorders were only
interested in the Armenians, while intentionally omitting reports of
Muslim deaths. Take, for example, the 1915 Armenian revolt in Van
where at least 60,000 Muslims perished. Though the evidence for this
is overwhelming, the official archives of several countries mention
only Christian deaths.
Still,
Armenian Americans carefully avoid calls for the collection and
examination of all records regarding the events in question. Such
would include Ottoman records describing the activities of Armenian
rebels and the Russian invaders whom they supported, as well as the
archives of Germany, Russia, France, Britain, Iran, Syria and the
United States. Most importantly, the unedited records of the
Armenian Republic in Yerevan, Armenian Revolutionary Federation in
Boston, and ASALA in Yerevan, ought to be examined but remain
closed. Only those who fear the truth would limit the scope of an
investigation.
_FACT
8: The Holocaust bears no meaningful relation to the Ottoman
Armenian
experience.
1.
Jews did not demand the dismemberment of the nations in which they
had lived. By contrast, the Ottoman Armenians openly agitated for a
separate state in lands in which they were numerically inferior. The
Hunchak and Dashnak revolutionary organizations, which survive to
this day, were formed expressly to agitate against the Ottoman
government.
2.
Jews did not kill their fellow citizens in the nations in which they
had lived. By contrast, the Ottoman Armenians committed massacres
against local Muslims.
3.
Jews did not openly join the ranks of their countries’ enemies
during World War II. By contrast, during World War I, Ottoman
Armenians openly and with pride committed mass treason, took up
arms, traveled to Russia for training, and sported Russian uniforms.
Others, non-uniformed irregulars, operated against the Ottoman
government from behind the lines.
4.
Solemn tribunal at Nuremberg proved the guilt of the
perpetrators of the Holocaust and sentences were carried out in
accordance with agreed-upon procedures. By contrast, the Malta
Tribunals, which were convened by the World War I victors,
exonerated those alleged to have been responsible for the
maladministration of the relocation policies.
5.
Open Armenian-Nazi collaboration is evident in the activities of
the 812th Armenian Battalion of the [Nazi] Wehrmacht, commanded by
Drastamat Kanayan (a.k.a. "Dro"), and its successor, the
Armenian Legion. Anti-Jewish, pro-Nazi propaganda was published
widely in the Armenian-language Hairenik daily and the weekly
journal, Armenian.
6.
Hitler did not refer to the Armenians in plotting the Final
Solution; the infamous quote is fraudulent. All sources attribute
the alleged quote, "Who remembers the Armenians?" to a
November 24, 1945 Times of London article, "Nazi Germany’s
Road to War." The article’s unnamed author says Hitler
uttered the phrase in an address on August 22, 1939 at Obersalzburg.
The Times of London author claims the speech was introduced as
evidence during the November 23, 1945 session of the Nuremberg
Tribunal. Yet the Nuremberg transcripts do not contain the alleged
quote.
In
fact, the quote first appeared in a 1942 book by Louis Lochner, the
AP’s Berlin bureau chief during World War II. Lochner, like the
Times of London author, never disclosed his source. The Nuremberg
Tribunal examined and then rejected Lochner’s third-hand version
of Hitler’s address and rejected it. Instead, it entered into
evidence two official versions of the August 22, 1939 address found
in captured German military records. Neither document contains any
reference to Armenians, nor in fact do they refer to the Jews.
Hitler’s address was an anti-Polish invective, delivered years
before he conceived the Final Solution.
7.
The depth, breadth, and volume of scholarship on the Holocaust are
tremendous. The physical and documentary evidence is vast and proves
indisputably the aims, methods, and results of the racist Nazi
policies. By contrast, scholarship on the late Ottoman Empire is
comparatively scarce. Much research has yet to be completed and many
conclusions have yet to be drawn. Non-biased research from that
period has thus far revealed tragedies afflicting all sides in a
conflict with numerous belligerents. Nothing has yet been uncovered
which establishes genocide. In light of the ongoing research and the
other distinctions raised above, it would be improper, if not
malicious, to equate a desire to challenge Armenian American
assertions with Holocaust denial.
Bibliography:
·
Armenian Atrocities and Terrorism ed. by the Assembly
of Turkish American Associations (Assembly of Turkish American
Associations, Washington, DC 1997);
·
Death and Exile: the Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman
Muslims, 1821-1922 by Justin McCarthy (Darwin Press, Princeton, NJ
1995);
·
Muslims and Minorities, The Population of the Ottoman
Anatolia and the End of the Empire by Justin McCarthy (New York
University Press, New York, 1983).
·
Pursuing the Just Cause of Their People by Michael
Gunter (Greenwood Press, New York 1986);
·
The Armenian File: The Myth of Innocence Exposed by
Kamuran Gürün (K. Rustem & Bro. and Weidenfeld & Nicolson
Ltd., London 1985);
·
The Armenian Question 1914-1923 by Mim Kemal Öke (K.
Rustem & Bro. London 1988);
·
The Story Behind Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story by
Heath W. Lowry (Isis Press, Istanbul 1990);
·
The Talât Pasha Telegrams: Historical Fact or
Armenian Fiction by Sinasi Orel and Süreyya Yuca (K. Rustem &
Bro., London 1986);
·
The U.S. Congress and Adolf Hitler on the Armenians,
by Heath W. Lowry (Vol. 3, no. 2, Political Communication and
Persuasion, 1985); and
·
Proceedings of Symposium on Armenians in the Ottoman
Empire and Turkey (1912-1926), (Bogazici University Publications,
Istanbul, 1984).
Armenian
Allegations and Deportees of Malta
During
the years of 1919-1920, when victorious British armies occupied the
Ottoman capital Istanbul, hundreds of Turkish officials and officers
were arrested in Turkey, without any serious inquiry. Then groups of
hurriedly selected prisoners were taken from prison by the British
military police and deported to the Mediterranean island of Malta.
About one
hundred forty persons, altogether, were deported to Malta by the
British authorities.
Nearly
all the deportees were prominent members of the Turkish society at
the time. Former Grand Vizier, speaker of Parliament, Sheikh-ul-Islam,
Chief of General Staff, State Ministers, Members of Parliament,
Senators, Army Commanders, Governors, University Professors,
editors, journalists and others were among the deportees of
Malta.
They
were accused lightly and roughly of three categories of
"offences" : (i) failure to comply with Armistice
terms, (ii) ill-treatment of British prisoners of war, and (iii) outrages
to Armenians both in Turkey and Southern Caucasus.
The
last category of "offence", directly related to the
Armenian allegations, was particularly interesting, and the British
documents on the subject are illuminating. The Malta episode
of early 1920's give us, indeed, a true idea about much
controversial Armenian deportation and alleged "outrages"
in Turkey during World War I.
The
British High Commissioner at Istanbul, Admiral de Robeck, was aware
that the Turkish deportees accused of Istanbul outrages to Armenians
were arrested and deported not on known facts, but merely on the
statements of some unreliable informers and anti-Turk intriguers. It
was impossible, therefore, to sustain definite charges against the
deportees before a Court of Law. Admiral de Robeck reported to Lord
Curzon on September 1919, the following:
"The
deportees were selected from a list of persons considered dangerous
... The selection was necessarily made very hurriedly, and it was
impossible to rely on known facts..."
"It
is obvious that in these circumstances it might be very difficult to
sustain definite charges against these persons before an allied
tribunal. It is not politically desirable that any of them should be
sent back to Turkey at present..." (1)
It
seems that from the very beginning the British Government doubted
much whether these Turkish prisoners at Malta were in fact guilty or
not. The British authorities were not unaware that the stories of
Armenian massacre were a part of war-time propaganda and were
still much exploited against Turkey at conference tables during the
armistice period.
But
to make propaganda and to prosecute people before a serious tribunal
were indeed quite different things. The responsible British
authorities were, therefore, hesitating to accuse formally the
deportees at Malta. On the contrary, they were contemplating
their release as soon as possible. Thus, Mr. Winston S. Churchill,
the Secretary of State for War, proposed to the Cabinet on July
19th, 1920, the release of Turkish prisoners at Malta "at the
first convenient opportunity". (2)
Upon
this, the question of Turkish prisoners at Malta was discussed, for
the first time, at the British Cabinet. At the same time the Law
Officers of the Crown were consulted on the subject. The Law
Officers informed the Cabinet by a memorandum dated 4th August 1920
that they were dealing only with few Turkish deportees accused of
ill-treatment of British prisoners of war. No material or evidence
ever existed about alleged Armenian massacre. Therefore, the Law
Officers of the Crown abstained from accusing anyone of Turkish
deportees of such a crime. (3)
On
August 4th, 1920, the British Cabinet decided that "The list of
the deportees be carefully revised by the Attorney General with a
view to selecting the names of those it was proposed to prosecute,
so that those against whom no proceedings were contemplated should
be released at the first convenient opportunity." (4) And the
Attorney General wrote to the Foreign Office that the "British
High Commissioner at Istanbul should be asked to prepare the
evidence against those interned Turks whom he recommends for
prosecution on charge of cruelty to native Christians. " (5)
The
new British High Commissioner at Istanbul Sir H. Rumbold replied
"that none of allied, associated and neutral Powers had been
asked to supply any information, that very few witnesses were
available and that Armenian Patriarchate had been the main channel
through which information had been obtained. He said: "Under
these circumstances the Prosecution will find itself under grave
disadvantages." Further he added: "The American
government in particular, is doubtless in possession of a large
amount of documentary information..." (6) His colleague at the
High Commission, Sir Harry Lamb was more precise and wrote:
"No
one of the deportees was arrested on any evidence in the legal
sense.
"The
whole case of the deportees is not satisfactory...
"There
are no dossiers in any legal sense. In many cases we have statements
by Armenians of differing values...
"The
Americans must be in possession of a mass of invaluable
material..." (7)
To
sum up, there was no evidence at all to prove that such a crime
as alleged "Armenian massacre" was ever committed in
Turkey. Therefore it was impossible to produce any dossier in
the legal sense against anyone of Turkish deportees at Malta. And
the Law Officer of the Crown and H.M. Attorney General refused to
involve themselves with the alleged case of "Armenian
massacre" and he also carefully avoided to pronounce the word
"massacre" which was so freely used by allied war-time
propaganda machine and still uttered by some politicians as well as
by few members of the British Foreign Office. "From the
political point of view it is very desirable that these people (i.e.
Turkish deportees) should be brought to trial" insisted one
member of the British Foreign Office. And they decided to ask the
assistance of the State Department.
On
March 31st, 1921, Lord Curzon telegraphed to Sir A. Gedes, the
British Ambassador in Washington, the following:
"There
are in hands of His Majesty's Government at Malta a number of Turks
arrested for alleged complicity in the Armenian massacre.
"There
is considerable difficulty in establishing proofs of guilt...
"Please
ascertain if United States Government are in possession of any
evidence that would be of value for purposes of prosecution."
(8)
A
member of the British Embassy in Washington visited the State
Department on July 12th, 1921, and he was permitted to see a
selection of reports from American Consuls on the subject of
Armenian question. The Embassy returned the following reply:
"I
regret to inform Your Lordship that there was nothing therein (in
American archives) which could be used as evidence against the Turks
who are being detained for trial at Malta. The reports seen...
made mention of only two names of the Turkish officials in question
and in these case were confined to personal opinions of these
officials on the part of the writer, no concrete facts being given
which could constitute satisfactory incriminating evidence. "
"I
have the honour to add that officials at the Department of State
expressed the wish that no information supplied by them in this
connection should be employed in a court of law.
"Having
regard to this stipulation and the fact that the reports in the
possession of the Department of State do not appear in any case to
contain evidence against these Turks..., I fear that nothing is
to be hoped from addressing any further enquiries to the United
States Government in this matter." (9)
It
was a disappointing result for some officials of British Foreign
Office. One of them, Mr. W.S. Edmonds, minuted: "It never
seemed very likely that we should be able to obtain evidence from
Washington. We are now waiting for the Attorney General's
opinion..."
Some
obstinate British officials were still insisting for prosecution of
innocent Turkish detainees accused of imaginary "Armenian
massacre". In view of lack of evidence in legal sense they
decided to use political argument. The Foreign Office wrote to H.M.
Procurator General on May 31st, 1921, that:
"From
political point of view, it is highly desirable that proceedings
should take place against all of these persons... on the other
hand, it is equally desirable to avoid initiating any proceedings
which might be expected to prove abortive. In these circumstances,
His Lordship (Lord Curzon) would be very grateful if the
Attorney-General would be so good to favour him with an
opinion..." (10)
The
Attorney-General's Department returned the following reply:
"...It
seems improbable that the charges made against the accused will be
capable of legal proof in a Court of Law.
"Until
more precise information is available as to the nature of the
evidence which will be forthcoming at the trials, the
Attorney-General does not feel that he is in a position to express
any opinion as to the prospect of success in any of the cases
submitted for his consideration." (11)
Upon
the receipt of this reply, Mr. W.S. Edmonds minuted again: "From
this letter it appears that the changes of obtaining convictions are
almost nil... It is regrettable that the Turks have confined as
long without charges being formulated against them..." (12)
From
now on, the Turkish detainees at Malta were not considered as
"offenders" for prosecution, but rather as
"hostages" for exchange against British prisoners in
Anatolia. Sir H. Rumbold, the High Commissioner in Istanbul, wrote:
"Failing
the possibility of obtaining proper evidence against these Turks
which would satisfy a British Court of Law, we would seem to be
continuing an act of technical injustice in further detaining the
Turks in question. In order, therefore, to avoid as far as possible
losing face, in this matter, I consider that all the Turks... should
be made available for exchange purposes." (13)
And
then, all Turkish deportees at Malta, embarked on board HMS "Chrisanremum"
and RFA "Montenal" on afternoon of the 25th October, 1921,
arrived at Inobolu on October 31st, and landed safely on Turkish
soil. All Turkish deportees were released and repatriated without
being brought before a Tribunal. On the other hand, all British
prisoners in Anatolia who were handed over to their authorities
reached Istanbul on November 2nd. The episode of the deportees of
Malta thus ended.
In
conclusion, one can say that these prominent Turks, accused of
Armenian persecution, were arrested and deported without any serious
investigation. There was, from the very beginning, a great deal of
doubts whether the accused were in fact guilty or not. From
political point of view, it was "highly desirable" for the
British Government that at least some of these deportees should be
brought to trial. The
British Foreign Office has left no stone unturned in order to prove
that an "Armenian massacre" actually took place in Turkey,
and consequently some of these detainees were guilty. But all
efforts in this connection ended with a complete failure.
There
was no evidence, no witness, no dossier, and no proof. The Armenian
Patriarchate in Istanbul furnished nothing serious. The Ottoman
capital city Istanbul was under allied occupation and all Ottoman
State archives were there easily accessible to the British
authorities. The Ottoman government was very docile and cooperative.
Yet the British High Commission in Istanbul was unable to forward to
London any evidence in legal sense. There was nothing in British
archives which could be used as evidence against the Turkish
detainees. The American State Department was unable to assist the
British Government with evidence against these Turks. It
is safe, therefore, to say that the alleged "Armenian
massacre" was nothing but an imaginary product of a ruthless
war-time propaganda campaign carried out against the Turks.
What
actually took place in Turkey during World War I, was not a
"massacre" but a displacement of population. The
Armenian minority in eastern Turkey revolted against the Ottoman
State at a most critical time in modern Turkish history. In April
1915, the Russian armies launched an offensive against Van, in the
east, and the Allied troops landed on Gallipoli peninsula, in the
west. At that critical moment, Armenian bands were fighting against
the Turks, together with invading Russian armies. The Ottoman
Government then decided in May 1915 to remove insurgent Armenian
minority from war zone to the Syrian province of the Empire.
According to Boghos Noubar, the President of Armenian National
Delegation at Paris, some 6 to 700.000 people were deported from
Anatolia. (14) Thousands of Armenian were perished during those
years of war, food shortages, famine and large-scale plague; Turkish
casualties in the same period being estimated much more
higher.
The
Armenian casualties were first misrepresented and distorted by
vindictive Armenian nationalist leaders. Then Allied Intelligence
services, spread stories of imaginary "massacre", for the
sake of their own purposes. The Prime Minister of former Armenian
Republic in Transcaucasia, Howhannes Katchaznouni, wrote the
following:
"In
the Fall of 1914 Armenian volunteer bands organised themselves and
fought against the Turks because they could not refrain themselves
fighting. This was an inevitable result of a psychology on which the
Armenian people nourished itself during an entire generation...
"We
had created a dense atmosphere of illusion in our minds. We had
implanted our own desire into the minds of others; we had lost our
sense of reality and carried away with our dreams. (15)
The
so-called "Armenian massacre" was, originally, nothing but
the creation of that "dense atmosphere of illusion" in
vindictive Armenian minds, then, the same Armenians tried to
implement it into the minds of others. But, all political attempts
to prove that an Armenian massacre actually took place in Turkey,
failed completely in the presence of dignified British jurists. From
that respect the Malta episode of early 1920's was indeed
illuminating and conclusive.
References:
1
Public Record Office, London, FO 371/4174/136069 : De Rebeck to Lord
Curzon, No. 1722/R/1315, of 21.9.1919
2
PRO-FO 371/5090 and C.P. 1649: Memorandum by the S.of S. For War on
Pasition of Turkish prisoners interned at Malta, dated 19.7.1920
3
PRO-FO 371/5090/E.9934 (C.P.1770): Memorandum by Law Afficers of the
Corwn dated 4th August 1920 and signed by Gordon Hewart and Ernest
M.Pollock.
4
PRO-FO 371/5090/E.9934: Cabinet Oficer to Lord Curzon of 12.8.1929
5
PRO-FO 371/6499/E.1801: Law Officeres to Foreign Office of 8.2.1921
6
PRO-FO 371/6500/E.3557: Sir H.Rumbold to Lord Curzon, No. 277 of
16th March, 1921
7
PRO-FO 371/6500/E.3554: Inclosure, minutes by Sir H.Lamb, dossier
Veli Nedjdet
8
PRO-FO 371/6500/E.3552: Curzon to Geddes. Tel No 176 of 31.3.1921
9
PRO-FO 371/6504/E.8515: Craigie, British Charge d' Afaires at
Washington, to lord Curzon, No.722 of July 13, 1921
10
PRO-FO 371/6502/E.5845: Lancelot Oliphant (Foreign Ofice) to Mr.
Woods (Procurator-General's Department), May 31st, 1921
11
PRO-FO 371/6504/E.8745: Procurator-General's Department to the Under
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, 29.7.1921
12
Ibidem : Minutes by Mr. Edmonds of 3.8.1921
13
PRO-FO 371/6504/E.10023
14
Archives des Affaires Etrangeres de France, Serie levant 1918-1929,
Sous-Serie Armenie, Vol. 2, folio 47: Boghos Noubar a M. Gout, MAE,
lettfre datee du 11 Decembre 1918.
15
Hovhannes Katchaznouni, The Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnagtzoutiun)
Has Nothing to do Any More, New York: 1955, pp. 5-7
|