Terrorist Armenians raped, tortured, massacred millions of innocent and
defenceless Turks, Jews, Kurds, Arabs and other non-Armenians in
Ottoman Eastern Anatolia during WWI (with direct and generous support
from their allies, the victors of WWI including Czarist Russia which
also created the mess in the Middle East, including the fake state of
Iraq, millions of people are suffering from now) to ethnically cleanse
the area for an Armenian homeland which never existed.
The rest of the Ottoman Armenian population either very blindly
followed their terrorist leaders or remained totally complacent. That
is why another thug of Armenian anti-Turkish Hatred Inc says the
following:
"No sir, you will not find Armenians who will express disapproval or
distress for the assassination of Turkish governmental officials. It is
unfortunate that the attitude of the Turkish government vis-a-vis
Armenian demands dictates that more people have to die in pursuit of
justice. ... It is not uncommon to find those within the Armenian
diaspora who actually applaud these violent actions. "
David Davidian <***@urartu.SDPA.org> | The life of a people is a sea,
and
S.D.P.A. Center for Regional Studies | those that look at it from the
shore
P.O. Box 2761, Cambridge, MA 02238 | cannot know its depths.
->> Boston'dan Van'i istiyoruz <<- | -Armenian
proverb
+++++++++++++++++++=
http://www.mfa.gov.tr/grupe/eg/eg04/01.htm
Selected Books
Armenian Violence and Massacre in the Caucasus and Anatolia Based on
Archives Ankara-1995
Preface
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the most excellent administration systems recognized by the
history of humankind has been established by the Ottoman State. Since
many centuries, the Ottoman State has administered the minorities under
its rule having different languages, religions and races in harmony and
security; and in accordance with its policy; it has not assimilated
these people.
There was no problem with the non-Muslims in the period when the
Ottoman State was strong, but when the state lost strength the Armenian
question occurred due to the Great Powers who directed the minorities
in accordance with their own religious, political and economic
interests.
This policy of the European States has taken its place in political
terminology as the "Oriental Question". It is quite natural that the
Armenians played their role given by the European states. As it is
known, the "Oriental Question" is the other name of the division of
Ottoman territories with agreements, which the European states signed
among them, with the aim to protect the rights of Christian Ottoman
citizens. The demands of the European imperialistic states for
privileges and independence on behalf of Christian minorities in the
Ottoman State has become a "have to" policy. This policy has first been
applied to the Greeks; as a result of the interference of Russia,
France and England to the Mora Rebellion which started in 1821, the
Ottoman State had to give independence to Greece with the Edirne
Agreement signed in 1829. The same situation has occurred after the
Ottoman-Russo War in 1877-1878. With the Ye?ilköy and Berlin
agreements signed after this war, the Christian people living in the
Balkans gained their independence with the states called Romania,
Serbia and Montenegro. Only Bulgaria was left within the Ottoman State
with very weak ties.
When imperialistic Europe was not satisfied with this, they aimed at
the Christians in Anatolia. These were the Armenians. In the Ye?ilköy
and Berlin Agreements references were made relating to reforms. The
"Armenian question" was for the first time took place both in
international agreements relating to this subject and within the
"Oriental Question". Russia, and later England, were the countries
which showed the most interest in this subject. Under the influence of
these states the Armenians first caused rebellions which they later
turned to massacres by which they deliberately exterminated the
Muslim-Turkish people living in East Anatolia and Caucasia together
with their cultural and spiritual values. This work is an opportunity
for people under the influence of Armenian propaganda in Europe and
America to see the facts. These published records clearly reveal that
the Turks have not violated and massacred the Armenians, as the latter
claim, in contrary it shows how the Armenians exterminated the Turks.
I would like to thank the personnel of the Prime Ministry General
Directorate of the State Archives Directorate of Ottoman Archives who
have spent great effort in the preparation of this work.
I hope that this work will be helpful and useful to those interested.
A. Naci TUNCER
Prime Ministry Undersecretary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mfa.gov.tr/grupe/eg/eg04/02.htm
Selected Books
Armenian Violence and Massacre in the Caucasus and Anatolia Based on
Archives Ankara-1995
Foreword
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There should not be any doubt that the secret which enabled the Ottoman
State to dominate for many centuries and which distinguished this state
from the contemporary states lies in equally administering the Muslim
and non-Muslim peoples without regarding their traditions, customs and
beliefs.
Tolerance, which is an important factor in Turkish-Islam state
tradition, made the peoples in the Ottoman State live together in
peace, harmony and prosperity which has not been achieved by any state
throughout history. The Ottoman State has continued this for many
centuries without, according to their policy, using methods or ways of
indoctrination or in other words socialization, and without
assimilating the minorities as the big states did; rightfully it has
engraved in history the "Ottoman centuries".
When examining the whole history of the Ottoman centuries one can
observe in every period the just, tender and tolerant administration of
the Ottomans.
The Turks have always been equal, fair, just and tender against the
peoples and minorities under their patronage; have been protective and
have not been applying colonization policies.
Tolerance shown by the Turks during thousands of years to the other
religions and nationalities is a certain truth of history. The Ottomans
had in a way systematized this tolerance. Otherwise, the geography of
religions and languages of many countries would have undoubtedly a
quite different appearance.
In every period, wherever Turks have gone they have rescued people and
have provided justice, established civilizations and brought freedom.
The Turkish archives are the living evidence of this.
As it is known, the Jews were banished from Spain after 1492 and their
only solution was to take refuge in Ottoman territory. In 1572, the St.
Barthélemy massacre occurred in France. Until 1648 Europe turbulated
with religious wars. On the other hand, non-Muslims were living in
harmony and peace under the just Ottoman administration.
However, in the history of the Ottoman State there are many events of
ingratitude and betrayal of both the peoples under its administration
and the Western States which were provided political and economic
privileges.
The Armenians have also taken their place on this stage by betraying
the Ottoman State although they had lived in harmony and prosperity
under the just and tolerant Ottoman administration; they were trapped
by the Western States and used by them as tools in breaking down
Ottoman territory.
There was no Armenian question before the Ottoman-Russo War. This
question started when Russia, after occupying some Turkish cities,
provoked the Armenians here for independence against Bâbiâli in
advantage of their own objectives. After the provision of statements in
the Ayastefanos and Berlin Agreements relating to reforms in places
where Armenians were living, the Armenian question started with the
interference of the big states in the internal affairs of the Ottoman
State on the basis of these statements.
In fact the Armenian question is part of the "Oriental Question". It
should be known that the reasons for the appearance of the Armenian
question are not based on the social, cultural, economical,
administrative and political status of the Armenians living on the
territory of the Ottoman State; this question is based on an
international imperialistic strategy, a policy of power balances called
the "Oriental Question" created artificially.
The term "Oriental Question" that takes place in the terminology of
political history means the efforts of the Western States to break down
the Ottoman State. The "Oriental Question" means, in summary, for the
non-Muslims to break down the Ottoman State and to provide reforms on
their advantage and under this framework the provision of concessions
and privileges leading them to autonomy or independence. (1)
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 Armenians sentenced the Turkish
state and the Turkish people with feelings of malice, hatred and
revenge and harmed the lives and properties of the Turks because they
were sacrificed to political plots prepared for Russian, English and
French interests in which the Armenians blindly believed.
The main reason for the emergence 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 the policies
followed by these states briefly.
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
guardian of the Slavic-Orthodox union and its people. Russia, which did
not neglect to take advantage of the confusion and instability in the
region to apply its policy, provided the occurrence of the Greek
Rebellion in 1827 and the Bosnia-Herzegovinan, Bulgarian and Serbian
rebellions in 1875-1876 and provoked their expansion. This policy of
Russia which also aimed to obtain territory from the Ottoman State on
behalf of the provoked regions has not always been successful because
from time to time it came in question 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-Yskenderun 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 with the Edirne Agreement of 1829
wanted to establish an autonomous Armenia this was being refused then
by Russia which had pretended to be the guardian 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 that threatened England's interests had continued from 1873
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 oppress
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".
England supported the Ottoman State against the rebellion of Kavalaly
Mehmed Ali Pasha, governor of Egypt; in return, it had Sultan Mahmud II
sign the "English Trade Agreement" in 1838 that 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 and supported the Ottomans 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
behaviour 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 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 the independence of Armenia
because it thought that this would cause Russia difficulty and it would
avoid the Ottoman State to develop.
The Effects of the Policy of France:
The privilege of capitulation given to France in 1535 as a concession
and favour 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 supported 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 Kavalaly during the rebellion of Kavalaly
Mehmed Ali Pasha, acted in concordance with 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 manoeuvres 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 centre for shelter. Meanwhile, they had taken up
the protection of the Catholics in the Ottoman State and played an
important role in the Holy Places Question 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 Montreux Cease Fire was signed France
developed its relations with the Armenians during the occupation of
Anatolia; 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.
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 a
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
61st article of the Congress is directly related to the Armenians and
the 62nd 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 behaviour of the Armenians for their independence can be examined
in two phases. In the first phase, they started to disturb the peace
and security in the region they lived and demanded from the Ottoman
State and the Great Powers to provide and maintain the security of
their lives and properties. With these demands the Ottoman State fell
in a difficult position, moreover it established the necessary basis
for interference in the internal affairs of the Ottoman State. During
this phase, which can also be identified as the preparation phase for
independence, there have sometimes occurred events which have caused
malice and enmity among the people who used to live side to side in
peace since many centuries. For example, Armenians dressed like Muslims
attacked schools, churches, and their own targets by which they
collapsed the bridges between the two sides.
During the second phase of the Armenian independence movement there
occur local events based on individual activities by parties and
societies striving for independence which were located in Turkey and
abroad. The Kara Haç Society established in Van in 1878, the societies
established during the 1880's in Armenia which was under Russian
administration, the Anavatan Müdafileri in 1881 in Erzurum, the
Armenakan Society in Van towards the end of 1885, the Ta?naksutyun
society in 1887 in Switzerland and other revolutionary societies
started their activities with this goal. They sent weapons and
munitions to the region where Armenians were the most crowded,
especially to the Eastern Anatolian region in order to, as they
claimed, secure the lives of the Armenians. Terroristic events started
to occur with the organization of the revolutionary societies in the
Ottoman State.
These events started to progress after the establishment of the
Anavatan Müdafileri Society in 1890 and the provocation in July of the
Armenian people by the Hynçak Party in Kumkapy. Following this event,
European states protected the people who were guilty in these events.
Thus, the Armenian revolutionists strongly thought that the raiding and
terroristic events were not punished. This is clearly observed towards
the end of 1890 after the assassination attempt to the governor of Van
and the events in Amasya, Diyarbakyr, Merzifon, Çorum, Yozgat and
Tokat. The Sasun rebellion provided the Armenian events to be carried
to international platforms. England, France and Russia started to force
the Ottoman State to make reforms. On 11 May 1895 they gave the Ottoman
State a diplomatic note. In summary the diplomatic note stated that the
administrative, judicial, military and financial authorities in the
provinces of Erzurum, Bitlis, Van, Sivas, Mamuretülaziz and Diyarbakyr
should be limited on the disadvantage of the Ottoman State and also
that Armenians should be given privileges. One could, of course, not
expect the Ottoman state to surrender to these oppressions. The
Armenians who were not satisfied with these results caused events in
1895 in Ystanbul, Divri?i, Trabzon, E?in, Develi, Akhisar, Erzincan,
Gümü?hane, Bitlis, Bayburt, Urfa, Erzurum, Diyarbekir, Siverek,
Malatya, Harput, Arapkir, Sivas, Merzifon, Mara?, Mu?, Kayseri, Yozgat
and Zeytun. Following these events, the Van rebellion, the second Sasun
rebellion in 1904, and in 1905 the assassination attempt against
Abdülhamid II occurred. These are the main headings of the Armenian
events.
This published work of four volumes entitled "Armenian Violence and
Massacre in the Caucasus and Anatolia Based on Archives" is the proof
of the directions the Armenian events have taken after 1905. The
records in these volumes reveal attempts of the Armenians to
exterminate the Turkish population in Anatolia and the Caucasus.
Whenever the Armenians had an opportunity they attacked villages where
they murdered all the people without regarding if they were men, women,
children, young or old. When taking a general look on all the records
in the four volumes, one can identify the acts of the Armenian
guerrilla bands after 1906 rather as genocide than cruelty and
violence.
The first volume of this work includes 256 records collected under 26
summary headings relating to the events between 1906-1918. These are
the years when genocide was the most intensive. As it is known, this
period is in concurrence with the period of the Trablusgarb, the Balkan
and the First World Wars. During this period, the Armenians first
collaborated with the Russians, who had occupied a considerable part of
East Anatolia, and carried out all kind of violence and genocide in the
regions under Russian occupation. For example, record 2 states that the
number of Muslims which have been subject to genocide in and around
Kars and Ardahan has been 30.000; record 21 states the cruelty and
violence of Armenian guerrilla landed by the Russian Navy; record 4
states the genocide of Muslim people in Van carried out in cooperation;
record 5 states clearly that Armenian guerrilla bands and Russians
raped Muslim people, burnt old people and children who were forced to
gather in houses, destroyed and despised mosques and tombs, cut the
bodies of murdered people into pieces, roasted these and had these
eaten by those who were still living. Record 3 states that the
dimensions of the violence and cruelty expanded and included also the
Jews, that Armenian guerrilla bands together with the Russians killed
all the people in some villages in the regions of Erzurum, Van, Narman,
Pasinler, Sitak, Bitlis and Mus, that all the virgins in the village
called Salimli were raped, that they had dogs eaten the bodies of the
death, that they roasted like a lamb a child after which they tied it
up with a bayonet on a post, that they roasted a 6 months old baby girl
after which they forced the mother to eat it, that they cut with a
dagger children hung on a hook while their mothers had to walk beneath
the cut bodies by which their hair were painted with blood, that they
threw children in a well and burnt them in heaps of dried dung, that
they cut women, bruised their heads with stones, and nailed them by
their hand on doors, that they cut the noses, ears and chins of
innocent people, and that they cut 300 people including Jews and piled
them up like a wall. Record 7 states that Armenian guerrilla bands
together with the Russians continued their violence and cruelty and
that the Armenians murdered Cossack cavalrymen who came form Bitlis and
Muslim people whether old or young, woman or child. It has been made
clear that they have murdered the Muslim men in the villages around the
small town called Dir in the province of Hakkari, that they cut with
daggers and swords children of not more than 3 years old into pieces as
big as one's hand from which they made shelters and that they raped
about three or four hundred Kurdish girls. Record 8 shows different
ways of violence and cruelty. It states that 15 Muslim girls and women
were selected from the village called A?tak of the district Re?adiye in
the province of Van. These were forced to entertain them by taking off
all their clothes; they said to the girls and women " pray and let's
see how you do it" after which they tortured, raped and murdered them.
Record 9 states that Armenians and Russians cut the baby of a pregnant
woman in the neighbourhood Abbasa?a of Van, that they cut the male
organ of a boy of fifteen or sixteen years old after taking off all his
clothes, that women and girls were taken to the American organization
and were raped, that they took out the buried bodies from their graves,
that they digged tombs and filled these with mess. Record 13 states
that it has been observed that Armenian and Russian guerrilla bands
raped twenty three girls within two days in the village Arabköyü of
the town called Ele?kird, that they murdered more than 20 children as
if they were cutting lambs in the village Molla Kulaç in Hynys, that
two Russian and two Armenian soldiers brought with them two pregnant
women and bet whether the baby was a girl or a boy upon which they
cruelly cut the women's bellies where they found one baby boy and a
piece of flesh the sexuality of which could not be distinguished yet
upon which they started to quarrel. Record 12 states that "fourteen
thousand of the fifteen thousand soldiers" were killed in Beyazyd.
Record 19 again states that Armenians and Russians cruelly cut the
bellies of pregnant women and threw the babies into the air and held
bayonets beneath them, and that they raped young girls and women.
Record 20 and 26 states again the cruelties and violence. Record 23
states the cruelties and massacres of the Armenians applied to Muslims
under Russian occupation; it states that especially Antranik together
with thousands of guerrilla band members violated in Gence, Erivan and
Ordubat, that Armenians killed thousands of Muslims in and around
?ahtahty, Zengezor, Nahcyvan, I?dyr, Serderabad, that Armenians
withdrawing from the Ottoman army cruelly killed babies in their
cradle, old and ill people in their bed; and that they terribly
massacred people in Erzincan, Mamahatun, Erzurum, Kars and the villages
around.
The second volume of this work includes 209 records of violence,
cruelty and massacre collected under 38 summary headings relating to
the period between January 1919-August 1919. As it is known, preceding
this period the Ottoman State had signed the Montreux Agreement on 30
October 1918; during the First World War the Ottoman State had to
leave, according to the statements in this agreement, the previously
conquered territories reaching out as far as Baku. The violence and
cruelties of the Armenians were the most concentrated in the regions
which had to be left by the Ottoman State according to the statements
in the mentioned agreement; as if the Armenians were racing to take
revenge from the Ottoman conquests. In this volume, record 1 states the
violence and cruelties applied to the Muslims by the Armenians turning
back when the Ottomans left I?dyr; record 2 states the violence and
cruelties of the Armenians to Muslim people around Revan, ?uregil,
Zaru?at, A?baba, Çyldyr and Göle; record 4 states the violence and
cruelties of the Armenians, who worked in French military units, to
people and soldiers in Adana and around and especially in Pozanty; and
record 5 states that Armenians dressed like French soldiers killed the
telegram director in Zor. As these records show the violence, cruelties
and massacres are concentrated in Kars, Ardahan, Batum, Revan, Nahcivan
and around. Records in this volume show that the cruelties and violence
of the Armenians also occurred in Adana, Mara?, Antep and around. In
this region, which was appointed to France according to the statements
in the Montreux Agreement, the Armenians showed their various cruelties
and violence time to time in collaboration with the occupying French
soldiers.
The first volume of these two consists of three main chapters.
The first chapter is the introduction part which explains, in summary,
the Turkish-Armenian, the Armenian-Russian, the Armenian-French and the
Armenian-English relations and the events which formed the basis for
the genocide by the Armenians.
The second chapter consists of the transcriptions and the summaries of
the records. In order to provide foreign people understand the genocide
by the Armenians, the summaries have been translated into English. In
addition, the bibliography of sources used for the preparation of the
index and the introduction takes place in this chapter. In the second
chapter, the records are given a record number according to the
principle of chronological classification and a summary heading
including summary and transcription. The summary headings are printed
in italic to make it more remarkable. The record summaries are to be
found immediately beneath the summary headings; effort has been shown
to reflect as much as possible the subject of the record and the
elements of place, persons and time. Under the summary, the date of the
record according to both the Christian and the Islamic calendar is
given.
In this chapter, the transcriptions are given under the summaries. The
records groups are arranged according to the development of events by
taking into consideration the historical developments. While doing
this, introductory records are given first. In the transcriptions,
letter and syllable droppings in the original text and the number one
representing thousand in the dates are given in square parentheses.
In the third chapter, there are the photocopies of the records. The
record numbers in this part and those in the second chapter are
identical. The record number and the summary headings are given
according to the same method.
Right under the photocopies of the records there are references which
may be, in a way, identified as the identity of the record. These
references show the fond and the file number of the record in the Prime
Ministry General Directorate of the State Archives Directorate of
Ottoman Archives. In the case of records consisting of more than one
page the reference is given at the last page.
The second volume consists of two chapters. In the first chapter there
are the summaries and transcriptions of the records and index. In the
second chapter there are the photocopies of the records.
The four volumes of this work will be continued with the third and
fourth volumes which will be presented as soon as possible to the
attention and use of circles of science.
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 who have written
books on behalf of the Armenians with the aim to establish an Armenian
country, emphasize the political interests of the countries they are a
native of. 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; 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.
The works published until the present are in general one-sided and in
opposition of the Turks, because the social and political aspects of
the Turkish-Armenian relations are usually not put forward in the
Western countries on the basis of Turkish sources, especially
first-hand archival sources.
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, Ystanbul 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.
Because the English were the occupying side they had the advantage to
use the Ottoman archives, all the papers of the state and all the means
for listening witnesses. However, in spite of all their efforts they
could not bring out any record or information accusing Turkish
authorities. They also carried out such researches in the other cities
they occupied, but were not able to reach a result as they desired.
Consequently, the English wanted support from the American government.
Since long there were American missionaries and consular officials in
the regions in which the events occurred. These people were following
and reporting all the events. However, American authorities replied to
English applications that there were no sufficient evidence and legal
records. They also permitted 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 archives of the
correspondence between the English Foreign Affairs and the
representative in America. (2)
Another very important fact about this subject occurred in the recent
years.
In 1920 Armenians printed a photograph and a text of a so-called coded
telegram in a book published in Paris by a person called Andonian. This
telegram says that Talât Pasha, Minister for Home Affairs of that
period, gave a direction to the Governor of Aleppo ordering the
annihilation of Armenians. This thesis has been misused against the
Turks in the world's public opinion for a long time. At that 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, a work (3) published in 1983 has revealed 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.
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 with hatred and insistence for years.
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 throughout history will kill the entity of right and
justice.
It has become a scientific and national obligation and a criteria of
morality for us to bring the groups and states conditioned with
Armenian propaganda and clamour 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 and cruelties which are intentionally being
continued for centuries.
Our religious belief, our historical honour and our nobility refrains
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.
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 equal to 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 well-known and made-up Armenian claims are unfortunately brought
up, in accordonce with the conditions of that period, as material for
internal and external politics by states being a friend or an enemy of
Turkey time to time.
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 history and science 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.
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 this time from the Turkish
archival sources the origin of the Armenian question and terrorism, and
the basic aspects and powers behind this question.
I congratulate the personnel of the General Directorate of the State
Archives Directorate of Ottoman Archives who have spent effort to
prepare the archival records relating to the Armenian cruelties 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.
We would also like to thank Mr. Mehmet YAZICI, Director of the Prime
Ministry Printing House with Circulating Capital and his colleagues who
all have expended their effort in printing this work.
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.
21 August 1995
Ismet BINARK
General Director of the State Archives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mfa.gov.tr/grupe/eg/eg04/03.htm
Selected Books
Armenian Violence and Massacre in the Caucasus and Anatolia Based on
Archives Ankara-1995
A. Brief Outline Of Armenian History
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Armenian race and the geography of their territory are subject to
discussions. From the very beginning of their history, Armenians have
always been subject to the rule of other states and served these
states.
Having been ruled by Meds, Persians, Seleucids and Romans for centuries
in the history, Armenians lost their protectors against Sassanids when
the Roman Empire was divided; by 386, a part of their territories was
left to the Roman Empire, while the other part, including Erivan, was
annexed by Sassanids.
Afterwards, the Church began to exert a great influence over Armenians.
When the rule of Arsakly dynasty was abolished by the pressure of the
feodality and the religous elite in 429, Armenians who had been
governed by the Sassanid governors, were totally submitted to Iranian
rule in a short period.
In the meantime Armenians were the cause of several wars between Iran
and Byzantium and were frequently subject to religious pressures. As a
result of the victories of Kadisiye (636) and Nihavend (640), the
Yslâmic armies drove out the Iranians and settled in the Armenian
territories. Unable to stop the Muslim tide, Armenians made an
agreement with the Arabs. In this period, Armenians were governed by
general governors. During the Abbasid period, Armenians stirred up
several rebellions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mfa.gov.tr/grupe/eg/eg04/04.htm
Selected Books
Armenian Violence and Massacre in the Caucasus and Anatolia Based on
Archives Ankara-1995
B. Turco-Armenian Relations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The innate national characteristic of Turks, namely tolerant and just
treatment of other nations who were living within their states
regardless of their religon or sect, permitted to the minorities to
live freely. Armenians were the first Christians to understand this
tolerance in the philosophy of the Turks, who pursued the goal of
"global sovereignty". The Armenians, then a small princedom living in
Caucausus, were governed by Orthodox Byzantium who was forcing the
other nations under their rule to accept its own religion. They also
employed great pressure on Gregorian Armenians to accept Orthodoxy.
Bored under Byzantine pressure, Armenians prefered the rule of Muslim
Seljuk Turks as soon as they discovered this tolerance. TurcoArmenian
relations that started with the wars of Ca?ry Beg, became more constant
with the later periodical conquests. The victory of the Great Seljuk
Sultan Alparslan in 1071 against Byzantium was a turning point in the
turkification of Anatolia and therefore, Armenians were deeply affected
by these conquestial movements.
Armenians had never been subject to opression or pressure under the
rules of Great Seljuk State, Anatolian Seljuk State or other Anatolian
principalities such as Mengucogullary, Saltukogullary, Danismends and
Artukogullary. During these periods Armenians lived in peace under the
protection of customary law, a founding feature of Muslim Turkish
state.
Improving its political and military power in a short period, Ottoman
principality became a strong world power and annexed all Eastern
Anatolia in a peaceful way during the years 1515 and 1517. Thereby
Ottomans gained the absolute control of the Silk Road from Tebriz to
Halep and from Tebriz to Bursa. Despite this victory, the struggle
between Ottomans and Safevids lasted until the signing of Kasry ?irin
Agreement in 1639 during the reign of Murat IV.
Although several wars with Iran occured in between 1723-1727 and
1743-1746, the border laid by the Kasry ?irin remained unchanged.
During this period Crimean Khanate was legally binded to Ottoman Empire
and the Blacksea bank and Georgia were ruled by the Ottomans.
Although, several TurkishIranian wars occured on the territories where
Armenians inhabited, neither Ottoman, nor Iranian historical documents
mention Armenian names living in this region at that time.
The Situation of the Armenians Living under the Ottoman State
Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror, brought Hovakim, the Armenian
ecclesiastical leader, from Bursa to Istanbul and established an
Armenian Patriarchate near the Greek Patriarchate with his personal
initiative (1461).
Beforehand, just after the conquest of Istanbul he had appointed
Gennadius II. as the Orthodox Patriarch and by the establishment of the
Armenian Patriarchate the numbers of patriarchates located in Istanbul
arouse to two. The Patriarchate was the only authority over its own
community6 in the fields of individual and family law, as well as the
religious affairs and had also the right to imprison or send them to
exile, providing that it took the approval of the government. The
patriarch was appointed by the sultan and responsible only to the
government.
The members of all sects who believed that Christ had one nature tied
themselves to the Orthodox Patriarchate, whereas those who believed He
had two natures followed the Gregorian Armenian Patriarchate.
Although he was superior in terms of the religous hierarchy, the
Catholicos of Akdamar did not enjoy such legal authority that was
comparable to the authority of Patriarch of Istanbul.
Catholicos of Etchmiadzin, who remained under Iranian rule, was not
able to employ any influence over the Armenian people living in the
Ottoman State.
Following the establishment of the patriarchate and the settlement of a
large number of Armenians, Istanbul became their national and religious
center and by the early nineteenth century, it had hosted the largest
Armenian society over the world with approximately 150 000 Armenian
population. On the other hand, Armenians kept on their cultural
activities in their own language. They were quite contented with their
freedom of press under the Ottoman State.
Until Tanzimat Edict there was no notable change in the legal
situtation of the Armenians and they lived in peace, just like the
other communities within the Ottoman State. The first negative effect
of the Tanzimat Edict on the Ottoman administrative system was observed
in Lebanon.
The inhabitants of Lebanon composed of little Christian or Muslim sects
such as Druses, Nusairi or Ismaili; and Christian communities such as
Catholic Marunis, Greek Melkits and Greek Catholics. The most
influential societies were Druses and Marunis. Before the Egypt Crisis,
Lebanon had been used to send 2650 kese to Treasury as annual tax,
whereas Ibrahim Pasha of Egypt increased this amount to 6550 kese
during the occupation. After the Crisis, the governor who was appointed
to Lebanon decreased the amount to 3500 kese. The inhabitants demanded
the amount to be decreased to its previous level, but this was not
possible as the Treasury was almost empty. As a result the Muslim
Druses revolted. On the other hand, when Governor Mehmed Selim Pasha
abolished the mukataa the farming out system* and brought a new system
in which the tax is collected in usual ways in accordance with the
Tanzimat Edict, the Christian tax farmers rebelled, as they believed
that their influence and authority would diminish. So, in 1840 both
Druses and Marunis revolted and as a result, these two societies also
began to fighting with each other.
This stiuation in Lebanon has prepared the ground for the intervention
of France that was regarded as the protector of Catholics, and Britain,
who did not want to leave France alone. The incidents of 1840s are
therefore notable, as it caused the first foreign intervention that
required reforms for religous minorities.
The second intervention came during 1860-1861, and as Britain supported
Muslim Druses, whereas France supported Catholic Marunis, the conflict
between the parties intensified. For the governors of Damascus and
Lebanon were not able control the situation, the rebellion spread to
Damascus and the question was elevated to international level. As a
result, the Minister of Foreign Affairs Fuad Pasha had to take the
control and employed administrative regulations, that was regarded by
Armenians as the first step of achieving their goals.14 In order to
explain what kind of an administrative style Armenians found eligible
for their interest, one must summarize the overall administrative
structure. The governor (mutassaryf ) of the sanjak, which would be
autonomous in administration, was to be appointed among Christians and
assigned the rank of vezir and his term would be of three years. The
sancak would be divided into six districts. Mutasarryf would govern
Mount Lebanon freely, after consulting with a council which would be
consisted of 6 Muslim and 6 Christian members. A number of volunteer
and paid soldiers, whose number was not exceeding 3000, would be
collected from Mount Lebanon and put under the order of the mutasarryf;
and no Ottoman soldier would be able to enter the sancak without his
permission. The tax was also to be collected by the mutasarryf, who
would annually send 3500 kese to Istanbul. The Lebanon problem, which
at first glance is seen irrevalent to Armenian question, has been a
source of inspiration for Armenians.
Another development which directly affected the Armenians living in the
Ottoman State was the Te?kilaty Vilayat Reformu,* that was put into
effect on 7 November 1864. Accordingly, provinces, subprovinces and
districts would have a council, whose members were appointed by
election and these councils would become consultative bodies of
administrators. The members would be elected according to their
religions and sects and according to a certain rate. On the other hand,
the judges of the courts would be appointed among Christians and
Muslims in accordance with their corresponding population rate in the
districts. Once a year, the representatives of the districts would
gather and form the general council.
Tanzimat brought another novelty that directly concerned the Armenians;
the division of Meclisi Vala into ?urayy Devlet (Council of State) and
Divany Ahkamy Adliye (Civil Court). ?urayy Devlet, would function as an
head office, and just like a legislative council would legislate,
allocate the budget and fulfil high administrative functions. Important
steps were taken in democratization by providing a contact between the
provincial councils and ?urayy Devlet and presenting the former's
decision to the approval of the later by representatives who came from
each province. Thereby, Armenians gained a voice in legislation in
accordance with their population rate.
Another body of Meclisi Vala was Divany Ahkamy Adliye, that consisted
of a Court of Appeal and a Court of Cassation and whose members were
appointed for life. Issues pertaining to civil law were left to canon
courts under the jurisdiction of Sheikhulislam, whereas criminal and
commercial cases were left to secular courts; civil cases of Christians
were heard by their own religous leaders. Armenians were directly
effected by these reforms, which were in line with the overall
treatment that the Ottoman State provided for its nonmuslim subjects
since its establishment and in some respects extended their rights..
The customary and canonical law, that was carefully observed by the
Ottoman State since its establishment, did not permit to exert any
pressure (direct or indirect) on nonmuslim subjects. Islamic law had a
separate volume for nonmuslim subjects, where it fixed their rights and
duties. As a matter of fact, from the earliest Turkish State to the
Ottoman State one cannot find out any policy according to which the
minorities had been oppressed. But there are a lot of examples proving
the contrary. The Codes of Mehmed the Conqueror, Suleyman the
Magnificent and Murad III. involved clear articles about nonmuslim
subjects. So, did the Gülhane Hatty Hümayunu (Imperial Edict) and
Islahat Fermany (Royal Decree of Reforms). It is a widely accepted fact
that the State kept its promises given by the Tanzimat and Islahat
Fermany, according to which all subjects would be held equal in the law
regardless of their religion or sect, and none of them would be
discriminated and permitted to interfere the others.
When several members of the community changed their religion, either
for personal belief or for interest, some clashes erupted between the
Armenians. It is possible to bring evidences that the State behaved
completely impartially during these disputes and made efforts to help
their rapid settlement.
The rights that were given to the minorities by Mehmed the Conqueror
for the election and appointment of the clergy were not abandoned after
the Tanzimat, but carefully observed by the State. In the letters of
priveleges given to the patriarches, it was stated that the priveleges
and immunities given to the Church and Patriarch by the predecessors
were observed; these are evidences that the Ottoman State gave
importance to the freedom of religion and justice, even during the
period of its decline. Besides, the State's caution in keeping a
nonpressure policy over converted subjects is remarkable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mfa.gov.tr/grupe/eg/eg04/05.htm
Selected Books
Armenian Violence and Massacre in the Caucasus and Anatolia Based on
Archives Ankara-1995
C. The Beginning and The Development of Russian-Armenian Relations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The RussianArmenian relations began in the middle of the seventeenth
century. Understanding that Russia would strengthen and extend its
boundaries, Armenians presented Czar Alex a golden ornamented throne in
order to gain his friendship. When Peter I. succeeded to the throne,
the Armenians who wanted to get rid of the Iranian rule and establish
their own state, accelerated their activities to influence Peter in
order to benefit from his military power. Peter I. also thought to
benefit from Armenians in Eastern trade and after these contacts he
invited Armenians to settle on the Russian territory and announced that
he was ready to give all kind of privileges and guarranties, both
religious and wordly. During the reigns of Peter the Great and
Katerina, hundred thousands of artisans emigrated to Armenian Russia.
The relationship between Armenians and Russia improved in a short
period and during the first quarter of the eighteenth century it turned
out into a kind of alliance. When Peter I. advanced to Caucasus, the
Russian Government signed agreements of friendship and trade with
Christian Georgian and Armenian princedoms. According to these
agreements, Russia agreed to trade with Georgian and Armenian
communities and to educate the children of the elite of these two
communities.24
During the reign of Peter I., Armenians made efforts within the Russian
Government in order to establish an independent Armenia. Peter always
fostered their hopes, expressed interest in Eastern, Caucasus and
Armenian issues, but in fact he was not interested in Armenian
independence or in the establishment of an Armenian State. On the
contrary, he strived to occupy Armenia in order to remove all obstacles
from the Eastern road of Russia. Not only Peter, but also the other
Catholic governors wanted to use Armenians as a means to achieving
their own goals.
During the TurkishRussian war of 1768-1774, Katerina II. encouraged
Armenians to establish an "Ararat Kingdom" under Russian protection. As
a matter of fact, Katerina II. did not neglect Armenian factor during
her wars with Ottomans and incited them against Turks and Muslims.
Encoureged by the support an Armenian Bishop Osep Argotyan designed the
project of the "Ararat Kingdom" and submitted it to Petersburg; this
project was approved by the Government of the Czarina , but never
realised.
Annexation of the Caucasus by Russia
Russia binded Georgia to herself in 1783 by the procedure of the
protectorate, and planned to establish a dependent state in the
Caucasus. Therefore, it accelerated its activities over the Armenians
who remained unaffected by Etchmiadzin and Catholic influence in the
Iranian territory, as well as the Georgians. The agreements made with
Georgian and Armenian communities were renewed and accordingly, Russia
promised these Christian princedoms to protect them against Iran and
Ottoman State. In 1801, Czar Alexander I. sent his soldiers to Tiflis;
Khanates of Baku, Nahcyvan and Erivan were occupied. So, Russian
domination over the Armenians began and, understanding that Armenians
may be useful for their expansion goals Russia began to look at them in
this way.26
The OttomanRussian war continued between the years of 1806 and 1812 and
ended with the Bucharest Agreement. An article of Bucharest Agreement
stipulated the "forgiving of the subjects who were antagonistic against
the (Ottoman) State during the war". This article pointed at the
Armenians, who had cooperated with Russians during the war, as well as
the Orthodox people of Balkans; with this article Russia wanted to
assert its status as the protector of Christian subjects".
Russian Control over the Armenians
In 1826, upon the news of death of Alexander I., the Prince of Iran
Abbas Myrza breached the Gulistan Agreement of 1813 and began to fight
against Russia. Armenians helped Russia, that was caught in a difficult
situation. The leader of Armenians, Catholicos Nerses Asdarakes ordered
Armenians to fight with Russians, established volunteer troops and
gathered forces in many places. With the volunteer cooperation and
contribution of Armenians, Russia recovered in a short period, and won
the war. Revan was submitted to Russia by Armenians. In accordance with
the Turkmencay Agreement of 18 February 1828, Iran was to leave the
Khanates of Erivan and Nahcyvan to Russia, in addition to the
territories it lost in 1813.
Thus, the Armenians of Southern Caucasus, who had been ruled by Iran,
came under the Russian rule and Catholicos of Etchmiadzin became
located within the Russian boundaries.28
Czar Nikolas I. declared that the territories gained by Turkmencay
Agreement were "Armenian Provinces". Afterwards, within a very short
period of 3,5 months 8000 families emigrated to Azeirbeijan of Russia.
This population was settled on the border, so that they would vitalize
the trade, play a positive role in terms of military strategy and
formed a cordon sanitaire.
During the TurkishRussian war that broke out in 1828, Russians attacked
Eastern Anatolia and captured Kars with the help of the Armenian people
of the region and advanced to Erzurum. Russian forces took some
important fortresses such as Kars, Ahyska, Beyazid and Erzurum; in this
achievement the Armenians played an important role by giving
information on the location and movement of the Turkish troops. The war
ended with the Adrinople Agreement of September 14th, 1829 and the
Ottoman State restored some of its territories. However, Russia gained
several strategic places in the Caucasus and the islands in the mouth
of the Danube. Thus, Russia further progressed southwards from the east
and west of the Blacksea. With this agreement Ottoman State lost
contact with the Caucasus which was entirely surrended to Russia.
Affected by the provocations, Armenians made demonstrations in favour
of the Russians during their progression towards Erzurum, and after the
peace approximately 100 000 of them immigrated to Erivan, Ahykelek and
Ahyska of Russia from Erzurum and Eleskirt.31
Armenians hoped that the Czar would declare the Khanates of Erivan and
Nahcyvan as Armenian land and when the people of the region accepted
Russian identity this land would become independent. Thus, the Czar
would adopt the title of "King of Armenia", just as he adopted the
title "King of Poland". But these hopes did not last. Russian
interference was placed in a systematic and strong way. Taking over
their ecclesiastical centre Etchmiadzin, Russians limited the authority
of Armenian Catholicos and took the control of their legal system in
religious and cultural issues. In 1836, during the reign of Catholicos
Ohannes a code was put into effect, under the title of Pologenia. In
accordance with this Code, Russia recognized the Catholicos of
Etchmiadzin as the Catholicos of all Armenians and accepted his
election by the Church of Etchmiadzin, where other Armenian people
would send representatives. But this election was to be approved by the
Czar. So, Russia began to interfere in the religous life of Armenians,
too.
Russian Position about Armenian Question after the Treaty of Berlin
During the RussianOttoman war of 187778, Russian troops got in touch
with the Armenians of Eastern Anatolia, that they partially occupied.
The Russian army included many soldiers and officers of Armenian
origin. The commander of a large part of Russian forces, General Loris
Melikof, was also of Armenian origin. During the occupation, Russia
began to provoke the Armenians in the region to revolt against Ottoman
State to achieve its own goals over the Eastern Anatolia. During this
period, the Ottoman Armenians and the Armenians in the Russian forces
jointly organized actions against the Turks of the region. For this
reason, many Armenians had to leave Anatolia with the Russian forces
after the war.
Having cooperated with the Russian troops in the Eastern front,
Armenian Patriarchate Nerses also visited the Grand Duke Nicholas in
his headquarter at San Stefano and asked him to put several articles in
favour of Armenians in the forthcoming agreement. In fact, Russians had
the same goal in mind. Thus, an article about Armenians was included in
the Treaty of San Stefano. So, the Armenian Question emerged
officially, on 3 March 1878, because of Russian provocation of the
Armenians against the Ottoman State and insistance on including a
relevant article in the agreement.33
This development did not only strengthen the Russian influence over
Eastern Anatolia, but also constituted a step towards the fulfillment
of Russian plans which aimed to reach on the one hand to Persian Gulf
across Tigris and Euphrates, and on the other hand to Mediterranean
over Yskenderun (Formerly Alexandretta). Russia aimed at balkanizing
Eastern Anatolia and if it could fulfill these goals, it would have
enjoyed a great influence over the Ottoman State.
This situation worried Britain, who thought that her interests were in
danger. Thus, in order to prevent the escalation of the danger, British
Government forced Ottoman State to promise the reforms in Eastern
Anatolia and to permit her settlement in Cyprus. On the other hand, she
became an intervening party to the Armenian Question at the Congress of
Berlin. By the Article 61 of the Treaty of Berlin, the big powers
persuaded the Ottoman State to introduce reforms in the provinces
inhabited by the Armenians and undertook the control of these reforms.
Thereby, Armenian Question was elevated to international level, where
not only Russia, but also the other states had a say.
After the conclusion of the Treaty of Berlin, Russia continued to
provoke the Ottoman Armenians, but did not want their independence,
considering that this might soon encourage their own Armenian
population to make similar demands.
The situation of the Caucasus Armenians, whose national aspirations
were fostered by the policy of Czar Alexander II., began to change
after 1881. At that date, Alexander II. was killed and his son
Alexander III succeeded him. This development caused important changes
in domestic and foreign policies of Russia. From this date onwards,
Russia adopted a negative attitude towards all kinds of independence
movements outside of its borders. Inside its borders, it pursued a
policy of Russification and employed great pressure on the Caucasus
Armenians by crashing their national feelings, taking the control of
their churches, and closing their schools.
Alexander III. put an end to the traditional Russian policy of
protecting the Eastern Christians. In order to expel Britain from the
Near East and to provide their own security, he thought that it was
necessary to agree with the Turks. One of the conditions to such an
agreement was turning away from the Armenians and resisting
provocations against Turks.
Disturbed by domestic developments, Russia adopted a new policy which
foresaw no chance of recovery to its own Armenians, but stipulated the
provocation of the Ottoman Armenians. So, Russians planned that the
Ottoman State, already overwhelmed with problems, would weaken and the
autonomous administration, which aimed at by Armenians, would be
established only under the protection of Russia, not that of Britain.
In addition to these developments, during this period Russia began to
get involved in the Far Eastern affairs instead of the Near Eastern
ones. The eastern and middle part of Asia was full of wealth. It was
easier to strengthen in the Far East than it was in the Near East. It
was possible to obtain some parts of the countries, such as China which
lacked notable military force.
Britain found this new Russian policy more dangerous for herself than
the previous one, and encouraged Russia to turn to its old goals which
aimed at capturing the Straits. As a matter of fact, Russia might
threaten her interests in India and China, and Britain was reluctant to
fight against Russia under bad conditions and without any allies.
The new Russian policy gave a brief respite to Ottoman State.
Interested in the Far Eastern affairs, Russia was against the emergence
of any problem in the Near East that would occuppy her.
During 1894-1895 Britain attempted to pull Russia into the Near Eastern
affairs in order to take it away from the Far East36 and especially,
tried to take Russia and France in her side about the reforms that
would be introduced in Eastern Anatolia. The Reform Bill, which was
jointly prepared by these three states was rejected by the Ottoman
State. The aim of Russia in signing this Bill, was not to be seen in
the Russian and European public opinion at the behind of Britain .
Russia clearly expressed Britain its attitude about Armenian reforms.
When Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Lobanoff told British
Ambassador in Petersburg that "they never thought of the reform bill as
an ultimatum and they would not approve the use of a menacing language
against the counter offers of Ottoman Government", he was implying that
Russia would not accept the use of force in order to establish a region
which would serve as the nucleus of an independent Armenia in Asia
Minor, the ultimate aim of the Armenian committees.
Russia understood that the policy it had carried until then, was to the
benefit of Western countries, especially Britain, not to hers. So, it
was not deceived by the plans which aimed to set an obstacle to her
extention to the Middle East. The reality that Bulgaria turned away
from Russia and came under the protection of Britain, although it was
itself who gave support to its autonomy, alarmed Russia to act with
caution.
This Russian policy lasted until its defeat in Japan, in 1905, and then
it began to involve itself in the European affairs. Russia tried to
develop its relations with Armenians again; it abolished the previous
decisions, restored the confiscated assets to the churches and reopened
the schools in order to appease the Armenians and use them in the Near
Eastern policy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mfa.gov.tr/grupe/eg/eg04/06.htm
Selected Books
Armenian Violence and Massacre in the Caucasus and Anatolia Based on
Archives Ankara-1995
D. The Relations Between the Ottoman State and Britain
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The British interest in Ottoman Armenians began with Kucuk Kaynarca
Agreement of 1774.
When the RussianOttoman war of 1787 broke out, William Pitt, the head
of the British Government realised for the first time that Russia could
become a threat against Britain, if she progressed in the South and
became a strong Blacksea State. So, she found it necessary to support
the Ottoman State against Russia. This policy, commenced by Pitt in
1783, continued unchanged for a century until Gladstone became Prime
Minister. Pitt successfully set Austria apart from Russian alliance
during RussianOttoman war of 1787-1792; after the French Revolution he
also took Prussia on his side and exerted great pressure on Russia to
end the war and to give Odessa back. He even dared to make war in order
to achieve this. Although this was not materialised because of the
disagreements within the government, Russia had to put an end to the
war.
From this date until 1814, Britain was in competition with France.
Despite her policy, because of this competition Britain had to support
Russia during the RussoFrench war of 1807 in order not to remain alone
against France and she even brought its navy into Marmara. But when
Russia and France made an agreement in Tilsit in 1807, the friendship
between the Ottoman State and Britain began to flourish again. During
the Congress of Vienna in 1812, Britain tried to take the Ottoman
borders under the guarrantee of the Congress, although he was supported
by the Chancelier of Australia Metternich, who began to worry about the
emerging Russian threat, Czar Alexander rejected the offer.
During the Greek Revolt, Britain sided with the Greeks. However, this
attitude of Prime Minister canning must not be regarded as an indicator
of an alliance with Russia. It is believed that Canning thought that
Greece would ultimately gain its independence, and if it became
indebted for it to Britain instead of Russia, Britain would gain
another friend in the Mediterranean.
Britain remained as a spectator during the RussoOttoman war of
1828-1830 that started during the Revolt, but when Russia took the
actual control of Walachia and Moldavia, both Britain and Austria were
seriously worried. Russian settlement in the Caucasus accelerated
British suspicions, as it constituted a step on the way to India.
For this reason Britain refused to divide the Ottoman State, when
Russian Czar Nikolas II. told British Ambassador: "We hold a number of
sick men in our arms, I sincerely say that if this sick man is dead
before the conclusion of the necessary arrangements, it would be a
disaster." Britain also sided with the Ottoman State during the Crimean
War. It is known that Russia offered Crete and Egypt to Britain, and
wanted WalachiaMoldavia, Serbia and Bulgaria for itself.
Defeated in the Crimean War, Russia had to turn to the East, to Asia,
and completing the occupation of Siberia by capturing Vladivostok it
began to occupy Turkistan. Naturally, these Russian conquests in Asia,
especially the occupation of Turkistan, posed a threat against British
interests in India.
The 1870's were the years when Germany and Italy completed their
national unitification in Europe and when Russia escalated its
PanSlavism policy, that it had commenced after the occupation of Poland
in 1863.
The Ottoman State fought alone in the RussoOttoman War of 187778 and at
the end of the war signed the Treaty of San Stefano whose provisions
were very heavy. Both Austria and Britain rejected the Treaty
vigorously. When Bismark joined them, the Congress of Berlin was
gathered and Treaty of Berlin was signed, whereby most Russian gains
were taken back.
The British policy has changed considerably after the Congress of
Berlin. Gladstone, who was elected as the Prime Minister for the second
time in 1880, changed the policy that was taught by Pitt and kept
untouched for a century; he abolished the policy of protecting
territorial integrity of the Ottoman State. In this political change,
religious factors as well as Gladstone's conformism and antagonism
against Islam played an important role.
After the Congress of Berlin, Russia turned to the Far East again and
commenced a friendship policy against Ottoman Empire, while she began
to compete with Britain again in Asia. But this policy did not last,
either. When Russia was defeated in Japan in 1905, she and Britain
agreed on their respectieve areas of influence in Asia, in 1907. From
this date on, Britain began to make plans with France and Russia for
the partition of the Ottoman State; these plans were realised during
World War I.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mfa.gov.tr/grupe/eg/eg04/07.htm
Selected Books
Armenian Violence and Massacre in the Caucasus and Anatolia Based on
Archives Ankara-1995
E. The Emergence of the Armenian Question Within the Ottoman State
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the early nineteenth century, partially due to the provocations
of Western missionary movements, a cultural revival arose among the
Armenians, especially within the young Catholic and Protestant
communities. They flourished their own cultural centers, revived the
classical Armenian literature, published the Holy Book in their daily
language instead of church language and created a new literature
language comprehensible by the people. As a reaction Gregorians, who
were in a democratisation process under the pressure of the government,
also entered in a period of cultural awakening; secular education began
in the millet schools by the demand of the people. Wealthy Armenians
sent their children to France to be educated and they were deeply
influenced by French culture. When they returned home, they did not
only demand radical reforms, but also secularism and autonomy. During
1860's some of these Armenian nationalists joined the New Ottomans and
made efforts in order to establish a representative government both in
their own community and in the Ottoman community. A minority group
claiming independence was opposed by Gregorians and wealthy officers
and merchants, who had prospered under the Ottoman rule. Therefore
those who claimed independence would have influenced only
intellectuals.
The international crisis, that ended with the Congress of Berlin,
changed the opinions of the Armenian people. The independence of
Bulgaria and Serbia encouraged many Armenians to adopt the same goal.
The Russian occupation of Eastern Anatolia in 1877 was realised under
the leadership of Armenian officers and governors that were in the
service of Czar who captured the Caucasus in the early century. They
asked the help of their brethrens living in the Ottoman State against
the Sultan. Although most Ottoman Armenians remained loyal to the
Sultan, the activities of those who did not, created a sense of
distrust. Patriarch Nerses' search for European support at Berlin and
San Stefano for the autonomy of East Anatolian Armenians and Russians
efforts to foster the Armenian nationalism in order to destroy the
Ottoman State caused the escalation of the Armenian Question.
When European powers neglected the claims of Armenians for autonomy and
even independence, Armenians recoursed to violence instead of
persuasion. Revolutionary Armenian committees were established in major
European cities and among rich Armenians of Istanbul, Trabzon, Erzurum,
Van and Russia. They sent their newspapers and brochures to the Ottoman
territory by foreign postal services. The most proviolence societies
dispatched weapons and arsenals from Batum to Rize. Armenians of Tebriz
dispatched agents from OttomanRussia border in order to horrify the
Muslim peasants. Unlike Serbs and Bulgarians, Armenians were not in
majority in any region within the Ottoman State, therefore their claims
remained too weak. In addition to this, Czar Alexander ceased to
support revolutionary Armenians, as he understood that his recourse to
radical doctrins in order to destroy Ottoman State might evoke
rebellions among his own subjects.
Confronting with such difficulties, Armenian nationalists aggravated
their violence and recoursed to terrorism even against their rich
brethrens in order to get their support. Their goal was to provoke
Muslim counteraction and thereby procure British and Russian
intervention into Ottoman affairs. Another goal of the Armenian
societies was to break the trust of Armenian bureaucrats in Sultan.
Revolutionary Armenians established guerilla bands, assassinated
Ottoman judges, mail carriers and tax collectors, attacked Muslim
villages and massacrated all inhabitants. By threatening the Armenian
peasants and merchants by death, the terrorists obtained their
protection and food.
When Revolutionary Armenians found that they were not successful as
much as they aimed within the Ottoman boundaries, they extended the
area of revolutionary movements to the outside of the Ottoman borders.
Two groups dominated the movement: the Hintchak (Bell) Society40 that
was founded by Armenian students in France and Switzerland in 1887 and
Armenian Revolutionary Federation41 (Dashnaks or Dashnaksutiun) which
was established as a part of Czar's policy of uniting all Armenian
nationalists in order to destroy radicalism within the Empire. Their
programmes included establishment of activity groups that would enter
to the Ottoman territories, attacks to Armenians as well as to officers
and provocations to massacres. Thereby, they planned, that foreign
powers would intervene and so the nationalists would be able to
establish an independent and socialist Armenian Republic.42 And they
planned to realise this in six provinces of Eastern Anatolia, where all
Muslim people would be driven away or killed. Dashnaks did not resort
to terror until 1895, although they founded several centers in
Istanbul, Trabzon and Van. On the other hand, Hynchak was more
successful within and outside of the Ottoman State and founded several
centers in Erzurum, Harput, Izmit, Halep and Geneva. They also
cooperated with other nationalist groups, who were active against
Ottomans, especially in Macedonia, Crete and Albania.
They sent secessionist publishments to the Empire by foreign postal
services, attacked public places with bombs, and killed officers at
their tables and mail carriers on the roads. Despite of the
governmental efforts spend to maintain the order, Hynchaks achieved
their goals; agitations arouse. Abdulhamit II. founded a local Gendarme
organization, Hamidiye, in order to support the army against the
terrorist movements in the East and reestablish the peace.43
Armenian terrorism lasted three years (18901893): sometimes the
Government had to act very severely in order to keep the peace. But
Hynchaks did not meet any counteraction that will enable them to defend
their case in Europe. Therefore they organized a large operation in
Sasun, the southwest of Mu?, where the highest Armenian population was
living.44 Here, the bandits had been disturbing the farmers. When the
local governor attempted to collect the previous tax loans, Hynchaks
persuaded the peasants to confront the tax collectors with weapons.
Then the army intervened to maintain the security; while they were
running to the hills rebellions burned the Muslim villages on their
way.
Upon these events, a network of revolutionary propaganda was
operationalized, as it had been before, in order to develop the
reaction of European public opinion. The realities and provocations
were forgotten again; the Ottoman Government was accused of killing
20000 Armenian peasants and destroying 25 villages in the region.
Although a joint commission, consisting of Ottomans and foreigners,
exposed that the claim was exaggerated, European public opinion, that
was carefully followed by the politicians, was ready to believe in all
kind of bad claims about Muslims. Abdulhamid II. promised again to make
reforms in the East, that he was already making, in order to appease
Europe and to convince the politicians to something that they had
already known; then European states abandoned the idea of intervention.
Disappointed by the reaction of the European states, Hynchaks planned
to provoke a clash in Istanbul which will be done in public. On
September 30th 1895, a demonstration was organized in order to protest
against the report of the commission. They first marched to the
embassies and then to the Sublime Porte. The masses of the capital city
were agitated by this event. When Abdulhamit II. attempted to send
police force in order to keep the peace, the foreign ambassadors
claimed that these measures aimed at supressing the Armenians. Nothing
was done until the clash spread to the quarters where Europeans were
living; after this stage the ambassadors approved the imposition of
martial law and intervention of soldiers (September 9th, 1895).45 Such
incidents took place in Trabzon and other towns and cities, too.46 In
Europe, the outcries were heard again claiming that Muslims had killed
Christians and the government connived at that. But foreign powers did
not intervene; British Cabinet was so divided that Britain was not able
to act and Russia was against any action that would submit the control
of Straits to Britain. Terrorists were dissapointed once again.
The winter of 18951896 passed in disorder troublesome as overall
security was weakened; but nothing was done until the intervention of
the army in the spring. The Armenian terrorists, who were still waiting
for a foreign intervention, started their activities in Istanbul. On
August 14th, 1896, a group of Armenians occupied the Ottoman Bank in
Beyo?lu. They planted bombs into the building and took some of the
officials hostage. In order to draw the attention of Europe, they made
preparations for a longer occupation. After short period, a second
group entered to the Sublime Porte, wounded several officers and
threatened the Grand Vezir with guns. Revolutionaries were running in
the old streets of Istanbul, throwing bombs, and shooting haphazardly.
Some innocent people were wounded and killed.47 On July 21st, 1905, the
car of the Sultan, who went to Yyldyz Mosque for the Friday prayer, was
bombed; more than twenty police were dead.48 Communiques were left to
the European embassies demanding the following: dispatch of a new
investigation committee to the Eastern provinces, appointment of
Christian governors and top officials to the region, appointment of
Christian police, gendarme and soldiers to the region instead of Muslim
ones, exoneration from all kind of taxes for five years and a 4/5
reduction in taxes at the end of this period, increase in the
governmental expenditures in the region for schools and other needs,
amnesty for the Armenians condemned or accused in the last events and
restitution of their confiscated properties. Abdulhamid II. rejected
these demands, since each of them was violating the national unity and
political independence. The occupation lasted one day and at the end of
this period the terrorists occupying the bank were captured and the
others were dismissed. After a short period, Sultan declared amnesty in
order to release the tension and prevent conflicts. Christian
administrators were appointed to the said provinces, although they were
in minority.
Meantime providing the support of Czar Nikolas II. (1894-1917), Lord
Salisbury forced the Sultan to accept the Armenian demands by sending
the British navy to Istanbul.49 However, Russia joined France which was
opposing any unilateral intervention to press the Sultan, since Russia
was worrying that this development might increase the British influence
in the region. Salisbury was not successful; without foreign support
Armenian revolutionaries were divided among themselves and began to
fight with each other.
When the provocative activities were forgotten, Ottoman Armenians were
appointed to high offices, again. Armenian merchants and farmers turned
to their jobs. But the outcome of the events were very heavy. The
harmony that lasted for centuries came to an end. Rich merchants,
members of revolutionary committees and intellectuals left the Ottoman
State for Iran, Egypt, Europe and especially USA, when they found that
Armenian masses did not join their movements and not even support them;
expect for the events of Adana of 27 may 190950 the Armenian Question
seemingly disappeared until it was warmed up again during the world war
I.
After it entered the World War I., the Ottoman State received the news
that the Armenian committees were cooperating with the enemy and
stirring up perpetual rebellions, but it did not take severe measures,
hoping that the events would be calmed down. But when Armenian
cruelties increased, the Minister of Interior Talat Pasha warned the
deputy of Erzurum Vartkes Efendi that severe measures would be taken if
Armenians continued to cooperate with the enemy. But Armenians
neglected this warning and continued to cooperate with the enemy; and
even they increased their cruelties, as it is explained in this book.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mfa.gov.tr/grupe/eg/eg04/08.htm
Selected Books
Armenian Violence and Massacre in the Caucasus and Anatolia Based on
Archives Ankara-1995
Summaries of the documents concerning the burning of five villages in
Revan and the assasination of their inhabitants by the Armenians.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A writing stating that the names of twenty five villages attached to
the chief town of the sanjak of Revan burnt and their population
massacred by the Armenians have been communicated and that informations
about Nahcivan and other subprefectures which were also burnt, will
be forwarded upon receiving informations.
29 Z. 1323 (24. II. 1906)
Saltanati Seniyyenin
Tiflis Bassehbenderligi
Aded: 104516
Hâriciye Nezâreti Celîlesi Cânibi Sâmîsine
Ma'rûzi çâkeri kemîneleridir ki,
Revan sancaginin yalniz merkez kâ'imi makâmligina tâbi' Ermeniler
tarafindan ihrâk bi'nnâr ve ahâlîsinin kismi a'zami katli'âm
edilen Islâm karyelerinin esâmîsi mu'ahharan Tiflis'e gelen
sâyâni i'timâd bir zât tarafindan beyân olunmagla ber vechi
zîr tahrîr olunur.
1 Hores, 2 Çehri, 3 Cennetli, 4 Tos, 5 Betlice, 6
Köyrali, 7 Sarimsenk, 8 Mangüs, 9 Gözecik, 10 Güllüce,
11 Tutiya, 12 Damagirmez, 13Goh, 14 Kemal, 15 Kamerli, 16
Bozavant, 17 Toprakkala, 18 Masûmlu, 19 Ipekli, 20 Ugrubegli,
21 Çidemli, 22 Novibayezid (Yenibayezid), 23 Dokuzlu, 24
Tutuplu, 25 Hamamli.
Revan sancagi dâhilindeki Nahcivan vesâ'ir kâ'imi makâmliklara
tâbi' ihrâk edilen Islâm karyeleri hakkinda ma'lûmât ahzedildikce
onlarin dahi arzina müsâra'at edilecegi ma'rûzdur. Ol bâbda ve her
hâlde emr ü fermân hazreti menlehü'lemrindir.
Fî 14 Zi'lhicce sene 1323 veFî 26 Kânûni Sânî sene 1321
Tiflis Bassehbenderi
bende
Mehmed Re'fet
Mektûbîi Hâriciyye
Numara: 7451
Fî 11 Subat sene [1]321
Huzûri Sâmîi Sadâretpenâhîye Tezkirei Aliyye
Rusya'nin Revan sancaginin yalniz merkez kâ'imi makâmligina tâbi'
olup Ermeniler tarafindan ihrâk ve ahâlîsinin kismi a'zami
katli'âm edilen yirmi bes Islâm karyesinin esâmîsini ve mezkûr
sancagin sâ'ir kâ'imi makâmliklarina tâbi' olan ve ihrâk edilen
diger Islâm karyeleri hakkinda istihsâl edilecek ma'lûmâtin dahi
bildirilecegini sâmil Tiflis Bassehbenderligi'nden ahzolunan 27
Kânûni Sânî sene [1]321 târîhli ve 16 numarali tahrîrâtin
sûreti leffen takdîm kilinmagla emr ü fermân.
BOA. HR. MKT, nr. 2995/1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mfa.gov.tr/grupe/eg/eg04/09.htm
Selected Books
Armenian Violence and Massacres in the Caucasus and Anatolia Based on
Archives Ankara-1995
Massacre of prisoners and Muslim population in the nighborhood of Kars
and Ardahan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The number of Muslims committed to the guards of Armenians and
massacred by them after being inflicted physical pains upon and struck
by the butt of rifles reached 30.000; the Armenians serving in the
Ottoman army were deserting and deliberately surrendering to Russians
to disclose informations about the said army; Armenians from the
Caucasus were first allowing to be taken prisoners by the Ottomans and
afterwards evading and delivering to the Russians the intelligence they
gathered.
19 R. 1333 (6. III. 1915)
Bâbi Âlî
Hâriciye Nezâreti
Umûri Siyâsiyye Müdîriyeti Umûmiyyesi
Mühimme Kalemi
Kayit Numarasi: 90
Fî 21 Subat sene [1]330
Hulâsa: Kafkasya'daki Islâmlara ve üserâya mezâlim
Dâhiliye Nezâreti Celîlesine
Kars ve Ardahan havâlîsinde hükûmetin tahrîkiyle bi'lhâssa
Ermeniler tarafindan itlâf edilen Müslüman erkeklerin adedi otuz
bine vardigi ve hânelerinin ihrâk edildigi ve karli ve buzlu daglara
dökülen bîçâre kadin ve çocuklarin hâli dilhirâs bulundugu
ve muhâfazasi Ermenilere verilen Osmanli üserâsinin bunlar
tarafindan envâ'i sûi mu'âmelâta ma'rûz kaldiklari ve tüfenk
dipçigiyle dögülerek itlâf edildikleri mevsûkân istihbâr
kilindigi ve Ruslarla temâsda bulunan asâkiri Osmaniyye miyâninda
Rum ve Ermenilerin bulunmasini Kafkasya'daki hayirhâhlarimizin
tenkîd etmekte olduklari ve rivâyet olunduguna göre bunlarin
bi'liltizâm esîr düsdüklerini ve Kafkasya Ermenilerinden bir
kisminin da amden bize esîr düserek ve sonra kaçarak ögrendiklerini
Ruslara söylediklerini binâ'en alâzâlik bu bâbda ihtiyât
edilmesi Tahran Sefâreti'nden bildirilmisdir. Harbiye Nezâreti
Celîlesi'ne teblîgi keyfiyyet olundu.
Üserâmiza hüsni mu'âmele edilmesi esbâbinin istihsâli zimninda
Italya Sefâreti nezdinde mükerreren tesebbüsâti kaviyye icrâ
olunmus ve aksi takdîrde Rus esirlerine karsi tedâbiri sedîde
ittihâz olunacagi bildirilmisdir, efendim.
BOA. HR. SYS. HU, kr. 110, dos. 121, nr. 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mfa.gov.tr/grupe/eg/eg04/10.htm
Selected Books
Armenian Violence and Massacre in the Caucasus and Anatolia Based on
Archives Ankara-1995
Massacres of Muslims and Jews by Armenians and Russian bandits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While Russians together with Armenian bandits were forced back from
Hasankala to their own frontiers, they killed a part of the two
thousand muslim folk they took away and drove the remaining to an
unknown destination in the inland; in Erzerum the Russians and the said
bandits executed nine people and sent the whole male population above
forteen years to no one knows destination; in the sub-district of
Pekreç a self appointed Armenian tribunal sentenced some three-four
hundred people to the gallows and hanged them; in the surroundings of
Askale, Tercan, Ilica, Tavuskerd and Arvin no one muslim was left
alive; in Van Armenians after having killed about two hundred women and
children, massacred eight to ten thousand muslim people in the valley
of Mahfuran; the population of the village Hot on the boundary of
Narman were entirely exterminated with machine-guns; the majority of
immigrants living in Marhi Sufla of the subdistrict of Çukur attached
to Bitlis were put to the sword; the entire villages of Cinis,
Pezantan, Ergani and Semerseyh with all of their inhabitants were burnt
up and due to the pretentious ignorance of the Kurdish Bedirhani Kamil
many villages' inhabitants settled in the vicinity of Bitlis perished
from starvation; seriously ill children cared of in Bitlis Hospital
were savagely slain; in the village of Balikan Corpses were thrown to
the dogs to feed on; Çukur women and girls were raped and old people
burnt, small children were bayoneted and many other massacres
committed; all these facts are stated in copies of dispatches sent by
the governorships of Erzurum, Bitlis and Mamuretülaziz.
21 B. 1334 (24. V. 1916)
Bâbi Âlî
Dâhiliye Nezâreti
Emniyyeti Umûmiyye Müdîriyeti
Erzurum Vilâyeti'nden alinan 10 Mayis sene [1]332
târîhli telgrafnâmenin sûretidir.
C. [cevab] 8 Mayis sene [1]332. Ruslarin isgâl eyledikleri yerlerde
Islâm ahâlî hakkinda yapdiklari mezâlim büyük bir târîh teskîl
eder. Geçen sene Ruslarin Hasankala hattindan hudûdi asliyyeye tard
ve teb'îdi üzerine Pasinler ahâlîsinden iki binden ziyâde
ahâlîi Islâmiyyeyi berâber getirerek bir kismini itlâf, diger
kismini dâhile sevketmislerdir. O zaman Salimli karyesine giren bir
Ermeni çetesi, köyde ne kadar bâkir varsa irzlarina tasallut
etdikleri gibi kendilerine teslîm olmayan Resid Bey'in gelini[ni] katl
ve kâ'imvâlidesini cerheylemislerdir. Garb ordusu[nun], Yüzveren
köylerinde elli üç Islâm cenâzesi götürdügünü Köprü
köyünden 19 Kânûni Evvel sene [1]331 târîhinde arzetmis idim.
Bu sene Erzurumun sukûtundan sonra, Ruslarin isgâl etdikleri yerlerde
yapdiklari kitâl ve i'tisâf geçen seneden pek fazladir. Erzurum
sehrinde dokuz kisiyi i'dâm ve on dört yasina kadar bütün
nüfûsi zükûru muhtelif ve mechûl istikâmetlere sevketmislerdir.
Erzurum'dan, Askala'dan ve ahîren Tercan'dan firâr edip gelebilen
Resid Bey ve rüfekâsinin verdikleri îzâhâta göre Kazak ve Ermeni
çetelerinden mürekkeb müfrezelerin Askala, Ilica, Tercan
kazâlarinda mal nâmina ne gördülerse kâmilen gasb ve gerilere
sevkeylemekde bulunduklari ve Hovik karyesiyle Pekeriç nâhiyesinde,
basda imâm oldugu hâlde yüzü mütecâviz Islâmi çoluk çocuklari
önünde katl ve pek çok muhadderâti Islâmiyyeye tasallut
etdikleri ve Ruslarin pîsdâr kuvvetlerinin Ermeni bakâyâ
süvârîlerinden ibâret bulundugu anlasilmisdir. Ruslar Erzurum'da
bütün câmi'lerdeki halilari toplamis ve geriye sevketmisdir. Geçen
sene tahti isgâlimizde iken terkolunan Tavuskerd ve Artvin
cihetlerinden kaçanlarin ifâdesine göre, Ruslar orada Islâm nâmina
birsey birakmamislardir. Pekeriç nâhiyesinde Ermenilerin teskîl ve
mahkeme tesmiye etdikleri hey'eti zâlimenin verdigi karârla Tercan
ve civâr kurâsinda kalan ileri gelenlerden üçdört yüz kisi
i'dâm edilmisdir. Bunlarin esâmîsini yakinda arzederim. Erzurum
vilâyetinde elli binden fazla mevâsî ve üç yüz bin koyun Ruslar
tarafindan alinmis ve ahâlîi Islâmiyye yedinde çift hayvânâti
bile birakmamislardir. Ermenilerin en büyük mezâlimi Van'da cereyân
etmisdir. Vanin sukûtu ihtimâliyle on dört kayiga irkâben Tatvan
iskelesine sevkedilen bin iki yüz kadin ve çocukdan, ancak yedi
yüzü Bitlis'e vâsil olmus, muhâlefeti havâdan dolayi Ercis
önüne düsen yedi kayikdan üçü Ermeniler tarafindan batirilmisdir.
Diger kayiklara karsi dört sâ'at devam eden yaylim atesi üzerine,
elliyi mütecâviz kadin ve çocuk sehîd olmus ve bu miyânda
Erzurumlu Ârif Efendi ile iki polis, bütün efrâd-i â'ileleriyle
sehîd düsmüslerdir. Van'dan Norduz tarîkiyla Bitlis'in Pervari
kazâsina kaçmak isteyen sekizon bin Müslüman, Mamhuran [Mahfuran]
deresinde kâmilen katli'âm edilmislerdir. Bunlar içerisinde
kurtulabilen Van Ma'ârif Müdîri Serif Bey bu ahvâle sâhiddir.
Adana Vâlîsi Cevdet Bey o zaman Halil Bey müfrezesiyle binlerce
kadin, çocuk cesedi görmüslerdir. Ordunun lutfi hakla ahdi
karîbde ilerilemesi üzerine Rus ve Ermenilerin yapdiklari fecî'alar
tamamen görülecek ve tafsîlâti arzedilecekdir.
Bâbi Âlî
Dâhiliye Nezâreti
Emniyyeti Umûmiyye Müdîriyeti
Bitlis Vilâyeti'nden alinan 11 Mayis sene [1]332 târîhli
telgrafnâmenin sûretidir.
C. [cevab] 9 Mayis sene [1]331
1 Hudûd köylerinde ta'arruzi nâgehânî ile bidâyeti harbde
kalan kirk bini mütecâviz ahâlîi Islâmiyye cins ve sinn tefrîk
edilmeyerek nâmûslarina ta'arruz ile imhâ edildikleri, kaçabilen
pek az efrâdin ifâdeleriyle sâbitdir.
2 Narman hudûdunda Rusya'nin Hot karyesi ahâlîsini mitralyözlerle
kâmilen imhâ edip bazi hânelerden tek tük kadin ve erkek olarak
kurtulanlar Erzincan'in Mitini karyesinde iskân edilmisler. Hot'a
civâr köylerin de ayni ta'arruza hedef olduklarini ifâde ediyorlar.
Ruslar Islâm tebe'alarina ta'arruzla harbe basliyorlar.
3 Üç yüz otuz bir Subati'nin üçünde Bitlis'e mülhak Çukur
nâhiyesinin Morhi Süflâ muhâcirîni Bitlis'e gelirken Kazak
askeri tarafindan muhâsara ile oraya civâr mahalde bulunan
askerlerimizin muvâcehesinde kilinçdan geçirilmislerdir ki, ancak
üç yüz kadin kurtulabilmislerdir.
[4] Van'in Satak köylerinde kalan Islâm ahâlînin bu son günlerde
katli'âm edildigi haber alinarak Ergani, Cinis karyelerinin
nüfûslariyla birlikde Ermeni ve Ruslar tarafindan ihrâk edildigi
Mekteb Müdîri Mutîullah Bey'in tahkîkâtiyla sâbit olmusdur.
Hosabli Bahri Bey nezdine o havâlî muhâcirîninden gönderilen
câsûslar da bu katli'âmi te'yîd etmislerdir. Arâzînin hâlî
kalmasindan ve erzâksizlikdan müte'essir olan Rus kumandani, Van'da
on iki Ermeniyi i'dâm ve istirâk eden Rus efrâdini tecziye ile
Hosâb'da kalan Kürdleri teskîne tevessül etmislerdir.
5 Bitlis'de Kürdleri Ruslara isindirmak denâ'etinde kullanilan
Bedirhânî Kâmil'in Çukur'da, Gölbasi, Agaçur Kotni, Pan [Pav],
Çapkis, Meskan, Kakito, Müstak, Siz, Zurnaçur [Zirnaçur], Kisham,
Morhi Ulyâ, Müsürüp [Müsürü], Bizatum [Bizatun], Tahtaliyi
Boy[r]an, Mus'un Martektuk [Mongok] ve civâr köylerinin ihrâk ve
ahâlîsinin Ermenilerle birlikde Ruslar tarafindan imhâsini
te'sîri nüfûzuna ve tesebbüsüne mâni' oldugu sarla[ta]nligiyla
Prens Sahofski ile Rus kumandanina bildirmesi üzerine ele geçen
efrâdi Bitlis'e karîb bir köyde ikâmet etdirmisler ise de açlikdan
kismi küllîsi telef olup bir kaçi Mutiki [Mutki]'ye firârla
ahvâli söylemislerdir.
6 Van'da pederi Yüzbasi Selim Efendi ile vâlide ve akrabâlarina
vukû' bulan ta'arruzi senî'i, muhâcirîn arasinda aylarla
[aylarca] dolasmis, nihâyet Sirnak daglarinda yalniz gezmekde iken
getirilen jandarma kumandaninin besledigi sekiz yasindaki Mehmed,
vekâyî'i fecî'anin sâhidi ma'sûmudur.
7 Uzak yakin hiç bir akâribi olmadigindan dolayi Bitlis
Dârü'leytâmi'na toplatilan bes yüze karîb etfâlin biraz müdrik
olanlari ne kadar vekâyi'in sâhididir. Bunlarin yetmisi Diyârbekir
Dârü'leytâmi'na gönderilmisdi. Agir hasta olan ma'sûmlarin
Bitlis Hastahânesi'nde vahsiyâne itlâf edildigi mervîdir.
[8] Muhâcirînin istîlâ edilen mahaller nüfûsunun üçde biri
râddesinde[n] az olmasi, târîhinde bir misli daha görülmemis
katli'âma ma'rûz olmalarindandir ki, arâzîi müstevliyenin ._
atilacak derecede hâlî bulunmasiyla müsbitdir. Simdilik esîrlerin
istirâklerini ketm ile Ermenilerin cins ve sinn tefrîk etmeyerek
Kürdleri imhâ etdikleri Siird'de ifâde olunmusdur. Bu bâbda
kumandanlik nezdinde ifâdâti mazbûtalari olacakdir.
[9] Kosor(?)'un Pezentan karyesi bir ferd kurtulmamak üzere
senâ'atden sonra ihrâk edilmislerdir. Bulanik'in Semerseyh karyesi
ahâlîsi senî' ef'âlden sonra katli'âm olunmuslardir. Çukur'un
Müsürü karyesi ahâlîsinden on bes nefer kesildikden sonra, parça
parça olunmuslardir. Baltan [Balekan] karyeli iki kisinin, Meskan
karyesi önünde sehîd edilerek na'slari kelblere yedirilmisdir.
Çukur'da esîr edilip sevkedilen yüz sekiz kisiden on üçü Bulanik
yolu üzerinde itlâf edilirken, digerleri muhâfizlara ta'arruzla
firâr etmislerse de Bitlis'de ve Surih karyesinde genç kadin ve
kizlara senâ'at icrâsiyla dâhile sevk, ihtiyarlar ihrâk, sibyân
süngü ile itlâf olunmuslardir.
10 Van polis müdîr vekîli olup, Bitlis Serkomiseri Vefik
Efendi'nin sûreti sehâdetini, Komiser Mehmed Efendi'nin
mecrûhiyetini, ma'sûmînin katlini Bitlis'den firârinda
Deliktas'daki ilticâgâhindan gördügünü yazan Siird Jandarma Tabur
Kumandani Muvaffak Beyin hâtirâti mufassalasi pek fecî' vekâyî'i
hâkîdir ki, posta ile gönderilecekdir.
11 Diyarbekir'deki Bitlis komiser ve polislerinin o sirada çikan
ahâlîyi bildiklerinden fecâ'ate dâ'ir meshûdâti vâki'alarinin
tanzîm etdirilmesi menûti re'yi sâmîleridir.
Dâhiliye Nezâreti
Emniyyeti Umûmiyye Müdîriyeti
Telegraph from Mamûretülazîz
C. [cevab] 8 Mayis sene [1]332. Ruslarin Ermeni çeteleriyle birlikde
Bitlis ve Mus ve civârinda istîlâ eyledikleri sâ'ir mahallerde;
kadinlari ve çocuklari katletmek, irz ve nâmûsa tecâvüzde bulunmak
gibi birçok fecâyi' ve senâyi'de bulunduklari, zulm ve
tecâvüzlerinden kurtulup da buralara can atmis olan muhâcirînin
ifâdei müdelleleleriyle mertebei sübûtdadir. Bu bâbda gerek
mülhakât ve gerek merkezce muhâcirlerden müfredâtiyla alinacak
ma'lûmâtin ehemmiyetleri telgrafla ve digerleri posta ile
arzolunacakdir.
BOA. HR. SYS. HU, kr. 110, dos. 122, nr. 911, 17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------