"We really slaughtered them!" - Turkish diplomat on reading Armenian files

[SpArK]

Wikileaks: Stepping Out of Ottoman Archives, Diplomat Says ‘We Really Slaughtered Them!’
​

(A.W.)–The Ottoman Archives are undergoing a purging campaign to destroy all incriminating evidence relating to the Armenian Genocide of 1915-1923, say scholars, and according to one source the evidence—at one time or another—indicated that what transpired in the waning days of the Ottoman Empire was purely and simply a “slaughter.”


“Berktay claims that at the time he was combing the archives, Nuri Birgi met regularly with a mutual friend and at one point, referring to the Armenians, ruefully confessed that ‘We really slaughtered them.’”
According to Sabanci University Professor Halil Berktay, there have been “two serious efforts to ‘purge’ the archives of any incriminating documents on the Armenian question,” wrote Consul General David Arnett on July 4, 2004, in a Wikileaks released cable originating in the U.S. Consulate in Istanbul. The first, according to Berktay and others, took place in 1918; during the 1919 Turkish Military Tribunals it was revealed that documents had been “stolen” from the Archives.

According to Arnett, Berktay believes that a second round of house-cleaning was carried out in the late 1980s and early 1990s, during Turgut Ozal’s Prime Ministership and Presidency, as he undertook efforts to open the archives. Around that same time period a group of retired generals and diplomats, led by former Turkish Ambassador to London and NATO and Secretary General of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs Muharrem Nuri Birgi, went through the archives, supposedly in an effort to destroy evidence.

“Berktay claims that at the time he was combing the archives, Nuri Birgi met regularly with a mutual friend and at one point, referring to the Armenians, ruefully confessed that ‘We really slaughtered them,’” wrote Arnett, adding that Director of the American Research Institute in Turkey Tony Greenwood had divulged that when he was doing work in the archives around the same time, “it was well known that a group of retired military officers had privileged access and spent months going through archival documents.”

Arnett added that according to another Turkish scholar, the ongoing cataloging process is in fact a guise to purge the archives.

The cable then discussed Turkey’s need to hold on to the artificially constructed “Turkish identity” which dates back to Ataturk and his cohorts, as an essential component of the modern Republic of Turkey.

“Decades of official denial and the absence of historical accounts or academic debate within Turkey on this taboo issue have deprived Turks today of an objective context in which to process assertions of genocide,” wrote Arnett, who subsequently noted that while traveling through central and eastern Anatolia, “ordinary citizens” would often openly speak about “what their grandfathers did to the Armenians.”

Arnett also remarked that an essay competition had been set up by the Ministry of Education to deny the Genocide, which, according to Berktay, had been an idea devised by the “nationalist” think tank ASAM.

The current government’s stance was more muted than earlier governments, said Arnett, though still parroting the mantra “leave the issue for historians to discuss.”

In his conclusion, Arnett argues that it is unlikely that a noticeable shift will occur in the Turkish government’s stance regarding the Genocide, though he claims that creating a more conducive environment to dialogue is possible, and adds that it is important to encourage researchers to demand unobstructed access to the Ottoman Archives.










The full text of the cable is below.

US embassy cable – 04ISTANBUL1074

ARMENIAN “GENOCIDE” AND THE OTTOMAN ARCHIVES

Identifier:

04ISTANBUL1074
Origin:

Consulate Istanbul
Created:

2004-07-12 09:01:00
Classification:

CONFIDENTIAL
Tags:

PREL PGOV AM TU Istanbul
Redacted:

This cable was not redacted by Wikileaks.
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 ISTANBUL 001074

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/11/2014

TAGS: PREL, PGOV, AM, TU, Istanbul

SUBJECT: ARMENIAN “GENOCIDE” AND THE OTTOMAN ARCHIVES

Classified By: Consul General David Arnett for Reasons 1.5 (b&d)

This is a joint CG Istanbul/Embassy Ankara message.

1. (sbu) Summary: The lack of agreement and dialogue on the so-called Armenian “genocide” question remains a major obstacle to Turkish-Armenian rapprochement. A long-term resolution of this problematic issue can only be built on an open dialogue and healthy academic debate. Free and complete access to the Ottoman archives, one of the primary repositories for historical evidence during this period, will be critical to building the mutual trust needed for such a debate. Although Turkey has made great strides to open the archives and destigmatize the issue, persistent problems and doubts about the archives continue to undermine efforts to bridge the gulf of misunderstanding between Armenians and Turks on this historical question. End Summary.

2. (u) The most significant obstacle to Turkish-Armenian reconciliation remains a lack of agreement or even healthy dialogue on the Armenian “question” or what most Turks refer to as the “supposed genocide.” The accusations, denials, and counter-accusations on this issue have long obscured most genuine academic debate. Armenian diaspora scholars have amassed scores of eyewitness accounts and narratives detailing the tragic events of 1915-16 that they claim amounted to a genocide of as many as 1.5 million Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire. Turkish historians, meanwhile, have argued that no more than a few hundred thousand Armenians were killed by bandits, disease, and harsh conditions when, in response to the threat posed by Armenian insurgents (and the “massacre” of many Turkish Muslims), much of the Armenian population was deported to Syria and Lebanon.

A Question of Identity

———————-

3. (sbu) In addition to thousands of years of recorded history, a rich cultural heritage, and a vibrant Church, for Armenians around the world the 1915-16 events remain a crucial component of their modern identity. Although some Armenians have at times sought retribution through terror and violence (including ASALA terrorism in the 1970s), focus has shifted to a tireless political campaign for recognition of the events as genocide.

4. (sbu) The Turkish approach to the Armenian issue is complex. From the inception of the Republic, Ataturk and his establishment heirs have asserted that maintenance of a “Turkish identity” — which Ataturk and his circle developed as an artificial construct and which his political heirs claim is under threat from domestic and foreign enemies — is essential to the preservation and development of the Republic. Representatives of both the Turkish state and every government to date believe that acknowledging any wrongs inflicted on the Armenians would call into question Turkey’s own claims of victimization and its borders, and would make Turkey vulnerable to claims for indemnity. Decades of official denial and the absence of historical accounts or academic debate within Turkey on this taboo issue have deprived Turks today of an objective context in which to process assertions of genocide.

Are the Archives Open?

———————-

5. (sbu) Both sides have attempted to use the Ottoman Archives to support their version of events. The Turks have published volumes of documents to bolster their case, while Armenian scholars charge that the Turkish government’s obstruction of free access to the archives suggests that they are hiding the “smoking gun” that would prove the genocide. Armenian scholars have long complained that they could not obtain access permits or were obstructed in their research in the archives. Others point to long (and, they say, deliberate) delays in securing permits that often consumed most or all of the time available on grants or sabbaticals. Kevork Bardakchian, head of the Armenian Studies program at the University of Michigan, for example, told poloff that he and other colleagues were simply denied without explanation when they applied for access to the archives in the 1970s and 1980s. An Archive Director in this period spoke openly about the need to “protect” the documents from misuse by hostile foreigners.

6. (sbu) Turkish and foreign scholars agree that former PM and President Turgut Ozal made a real push to open the archives in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The records were placed under the supervision of the Prime Ministry, procedures for obtaining research permits were simplified, and efforts to catalog the 150 million documents were accelerated. Everyone we have spoken to concedes that this represented a “sea change” that has continued to this day. According to Turkish archive officials, permits are usually granted within a week, archival staff are helpful, and photocopies of desired documents are readily available at reasonable fees. When poloff visited the Ottoman Archive research room earlier this month, the staff showed him a computerized list of over 300 Americans who have received permission to conduct research there in recent years (over 30 so far this year alone). The catalogs are also freely available through the Archive website over the internet.

7. (sbu) Some restrictions on access remain in place. Turkish officials do not permit access to over 70 million still-uncatalogued documents and claim that many others are too damaged for use by researchers. Moreover, some critics still complain that the Turkish government seeks to block those researching the Armenian question. Prime Ministry State Archive Director Yusuf Sarinay pointed out to poloff that researchers must be legally in Turkey for that purpose, which requires visa approval by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Some researchers continue to have permits delayed or denied altogether (Greek researchers have also been victims of such discrimination in the past). Archive Director Sarinay said that although many American researchers have come to the archives, notably not one has come from Armenia. He speculated that this was because there are no diplomatic relations between Turkey and Armenia – and because of a policy of reciprocity for Armenia supposedly not allowing Turkish researchers into its archives. Turkey’s own preeminent Ottoman historian, Halil Inalcik, criticized the Archives’ lack of openness in a February 2001 editorial for Radikal daily entitled “The Ottoman Archives Should Be Opened to the World.” Despite the criticism, however, the mantra today is “openness” and any talk of “protecting” the archives from foreigners is politically incorrect. Although the Archives Director still has considerable authority to deny access, he would be hard-pressed to explain placing such restrictions on any serious academic researcher.

Have the Archives Been Purged?

——————————

8. (c) Perhaps more important than the question of access, however, is whether or not the archives themselves are complete. According to Sabanci University Professor Halil Berktay, there were two serious efforts to “purge” the archives of any incriminating documents on the Armenian question. The first took place in 1918, presumably before the Allied forces occupied Istanbul. Berktay and others point to testimony in the 1919 Turkish Military Tribunals indicating that important documents had been “stolen” from the archives. Berktay believes a second purge was executed in conjunction with Ozal’s efforts to open the archives by a group of retired diplomats and generals led by former Ambassador Muharrem Nuri Birgi (Note: Nuri Birgi was previously Ambassador to London and NATO and Secretary

General of the MFA). Berktay claims that at the time he was combing the archives, Nuri Birgi met regularly with a mutual friend and at one point, referring to the Armenians, ruefully confessed that “We really slaughtered them.” Tony Greenwood, the Director of the American Research Institute in Turkey, told poloff separately that when he was working in the Archives during that same period it was well known that a group of retired military officers had privileged access and spent months going through archival documents. Another Turkish scholar who has researched Armenian issues claims that the ongoing cataloging process is used to purge the archives.

Coming to Grips With History

—————————-

9. (sbu) Turkish attitudes on the genocide issue have evolved over time. Although few have the courage to do so publicly, some intellectuals, academics, and others privately question the official version of events. Ordinary citizens in central and eastern Anatolia often openly acknowledge to us what their grandfathers did to the Armenians. Several visiting American academics have noted that the subject is no longer as taboo as it once was. Publicly, the Turkish establishment (including the nationalist think-tank ASAM, the state Turkish Historical Association, and even the Archives) continues to challenge the assertions of the Armenian diaspora and fire off counter-accusations charging Armenians with having engaged in massive, wide-spread revolts during the war and with having perpetrated wholesale massacres on Turkish Muslims. In recent years the Education Ministry has asked high-school students to compete in an essay competition to deny the genocide (note: Berktay claims that this idea originated with ASAM and was imposed on the Ministry by ASAM’s military contacts). The current government, however, has been noticeably more quiet on the subject than some of its predecessors, dutifully repeating the need to “leave the issue for historians to discuss.”

Comment

——-

10. (c) Although almost a century has passed since the 1915-16 events, the gulf of misunderstanding between the Armenians and Turks on this issue remains considerable. No longer as completely closed a subject as it once was, discussion of the issue in Turkey still remains limited and dominated by the nationalist/establishment line. Even if the current government hopes to put this issue behind them, it is unlikely that they will be able to do more than simply encourage an environment in which a healthy discussion can take place. It is doubtful that, in their current state, the Ottoman Archives will ever deliver a definitive interpretation of the Armenian question, but they will be a focal point and key resource for any Turks and Armenians seeking to engage in genuine research and debate on the issue. To that end, we should support and encourage researchers to continue to push for access to the archival materials and be prepared to approach the Turkish government to discuss any complaints of official obstruction. We request that the Department make us aware of any such complaints.



Wikileaks: Stepping Out of Ottoman Archives, Diplomat Says

 

[Aldin]

Again, an Indian opening another anti-muslim related thread. Yawn...

And as for the topic of ''Armenian genocide'' i as someone who lives in this region know very well what crimes Greeks and Armenians committed against Turkish civilians during first world war and two balkan wars.

Nothing but bunch of hypocrites.

 

[Developereo]

American (i.e. Israeli) claims about Turkish 'crimes' relying on unsubstantiated assertions by some disgruntled professor.

Thread started by an Indian. quelle surprise!

 

[jha]

Again, an Indian opening another anti-muslim related thread. Yawn...

And as for the topic of ''Armenian genocide'' i as someone who lives in this region know very well what crimes Greeks and Armenians committed against Turkish civilians during first world war and two balkan wars.

Nothing but bunch of hypocrites.

Grow Up..India has more muslims than your country..

 

[westtowel]

The Armenian genocide

 

[scrumpy]

Even the Turkish republic recegonises that 300000 Armenians were killed because of these forced migrations.

BBC News - Q&A: Armenian genocide dispute

For those who claim that this is an anti-muslim post. I want to know if you guys think that muslims cannot have bad people among them?

 

[TARIQ BN ZIYAAD]

turky goes against israel and here u go start malign turky every which way

TARIQ

 

[jha]

Even the Turkish republic recegonises that 300000 Armenians were killed because of these forced migrations.

BBC News - Q&A: Armenian genocide dispute

For those who claim that this is an anti-muslim post. I want to know if you guys think that muslims cannot have bad people among them?

Is that even a valid question ..? Ofcourse Muslims can not have bad people among them..

 

[TrMhMt]

Again, an Indian opening another anti-muslim related thread. Yawn...

And as for the topic of ''Armenian genocide'' i as someone who lives in this region know very well what crimes Greeks and Armenians committed against Turkish civilians during first world war and two balkan wars.

Nothing but bunch of hypocrites.

Well said bro...

 

[SpArK]

Is that even a valid question ..? Ofcourse Muslims can not have bad people among them..

Well said Bro!....

 

[PteX]

Armenian genocide happened, no matter how much you deny it and these documents came from 2004 not 2011.
Well if Turkey wants to make an enemy of Israel then it`s time Israel made friends with Turkey`s enemies.

 

[TrMhMt]

Armenian genocide happened, no matter how much you deny it and these documents came from 2004 not 2011.
Well if Turkey wants to make an enemy of Israel then it`s time Israel made friends with Turkey`s enemies.

No matter what you claim.. You have to support these lies toward us coz you must cover your crimes and need these kind mud-throw claims ..

Israel was always supporting enemy of Turkiye especially pkk militants. You are always what you are !!

 

[westtowel]

"We really slaughtered them."

Cable Viewer

 

[TrMhMt]

Here is the the truth of so-called Armenian genocide ............










by Prof. Justin McCarthy
I am very pleased to be in Erzurum today. I am especially glad to be among my colleagues, the professors of Atatürk Üniversitesi, who have done so much to investigate the massacres of the Turks of Erzurum and to teach us the story of the saddest period in Turkish history.
Life, Disorder, and Conflict in Erzurum Province
Before considering their history, it is essential to first identify the people of Ottoman Erzurum Vilâyeti.
Armenians often claimed Erzurum, but in 1914 no Armenian had ruled Erzurum for more than 900 years. More important, the population of Erzurum was solidly Muslim. There were five times as many Muslims as Armenians in the province. Early in the nineteenth century the percentage of Armenians had been somewhat larger and the percentage of Muslims somewhat smaller. But Erzurum had not had an Armenian majority for many centuries. In Ottoman times, Erzurum had always been at least two-thirds Muslim.
(I say “Muslim” rather than “Turk”, because the Ottomans kept all their population records by religion. Anyone who says he knows precisely the ethnicity or language of the inhabitants of the Ottoman Empire is inventing his statistics. All evidence indicates, however, that the majority of Erzurum’s Muslims were Turks.)
Erzurum in 1912
Community Population Percent
Muslim 804,400 83%
Greek 5,800 *
Armenian 163,200 17%
Other 800 *
Total 974,200
* less than 1%
Now to the Armenians of Erzurum. For many years, Americans and Europeans have been told that the Armenians were persecuted. Is this true? It is not. Some Armenians did indeed suffer, but what they suffered was not persecution.
Life was indeed hard for the Armenians of Erzurum. They did not live as comfortably or as safely as the Armenians in Western Anatolia or Istanbul. They were often poor; making a living by farming land that could barely support their families. They were sometimes in danger, robbed by Kurdish tribes or bandits. The government could not protect them properly. Sometimes the government officials who should have protected them instead took advantage of them.
The life of the Armenians was indeed hard, but they were not alone. The life of Erzurum’s Muslims, including the Turks and the peaceful Kurds of villages and cities, was just as difficult. They too were poor. They too were robbed and killed. They too went unprotected.
The fact that all the people of Erzurum suffered alike is often hidden from the world. That is due to the reporting of missionaries and foreign diplomats. Most of the Europeans and Americans tended to report only the murders of Armenians, not the murders of Muslims. They sent reports of robberies of Armenians, not of robberies of Muslims. Luckily, some Europeans, especially certain British consuls, and the Ottomans themselves kept records of what was really happening in Eastern Anatolia.
There is little time here for examples of the difficulties of life in Erzurum, but one of the best examples is the career of Hüseyin A?a.
Charles Hampson, one of the many British consuls who served in Erzurum, was no friend of the Turks, but he occasionally simply reported what occurred. In 1891 he sent a report on the activities of Hüseyin A?a, a sub-chief of the Haydaranl? Kurds in Ele?kirt. Hüseyin had plundered another Kurdish village, carrying off all their sheep. He murdered the Muslim religious leader of Patnos, ?eyh Nuri. Then he burned down nine villages, tortured and murdered the Muslim inhabitants, and carried off their sheep and other animals. He was accused of murder, robbery, extortion, and rape by Muslims and Christians alike. All, no matter their religion, suffered at his hands. Finally, with great difficulty, he was caught and held in Erzurum. While Hüseyin was being held, his brother and son took over the family’s work and robbed twenty-one more villages.1
Hüseyin was reported to command 2,000 men. This may have been an exaggeration, but one can see why the government had great difficulty in controlling him.
Hüseyin was only one of the tribesmen who disrupted the life of the settled population of Erzurum. Erzurum Province was a place of insecurity. In 1893, the caravan from Erzurum to Bitlis was attacked by Kurds before it had gone five miles from the city. The inspector of the Tobacco Regie was robbed by Kurds in 1892. Both Armenian and Armenian merchants protested that they could not trade because of the actions of bandits. The Muslim merchants of Erzurum formerly complained to the government in Istanbul of the insecurity in the province. They said the Kurdish tribes were attacking Turks and Armenians alike.
Why was Erzurum unsafe for both Muslims and Christians? It was not the Ottoman administrators or the Ottoman system. Some valis were good, some bad. Most seem to have done as well as they could with the resources they had. Even the Europeans praised some governors as well-intentioned and energetic men. The problem was that they had so few resources. What was needed in Erzurum was money. The gendarmes were often not paid even their small salaries. Officials too went unpaid. Money was needed to hire more police, soldiers, and officials. Money was also needed for seed, fertilizer, better roads, and all the things that would have made Erzurum a better place. But there was no money.
Who was to blame for the poverty of Erzurum? Partly it was the Ottoman Government. The Ottomans were never good accountants. But the main cause of Ottoman weakness was beyond Ottoman control. The Russians had damaged the Ottoman Empire both militarily and economically in the 1877-78 war. In addition to the loss of manpower, supplies, and productive territory, the Ottomans had been forced to pay a crushing indemnity of 800 million francs. Then the Empire was forced to spend great amounts to defend against the next Russian attack. The Ottomans were forced to spend ten times as much on the military as on the police and gendarmery, and twenty times as much on the military as on education. The “friends” of the Ottomans only worsened the economic state by enforcing the capitulations. No wonder the gendarmes could not be paid.
The Ottomans did what they could to make Erzurum more secure for both Armenians and Muslims. 51 Armenians were actually enrolled as gendarmes in Erzurum Province in 1896, braving the opposition of the Armenian revolutionaries. The vali wanted 218, but no more could be found, because the pay was so irregular. Even the most loyal Armenian subject of the sultan had to feed his family.2
It would be absurd to think that the Ottoman Government approved or fostered the state of unrest in Erzurum and elsewhere in Eastern Anatolia. There is no evidence that the Government held any animosity toward its Armenian subjects, but one need not assume governmental good will, only self-interest. The Government needed money. The only way to obtain the money was from taxes. The only way to increase taxes was to increase production, and that demanded improved security. Security for all, Muslims and Armenians, would have been good for the government.
The question of whom suffered more from attacks by tribes and bandits, the Muslims or the Armenians cannot be answered. Neither can one say whether Muslim farmers or Christian farmers were better off. Both Armenians and Turks3 complained of Kurdish raids. Neither was doing very well.
It is known that in some respects the Armenians were in a much better position than the Muslims. In the cities and towns the Armenians were wealthier and had more economic and social opportunity. This was true all over the Ottoman Empire.
Nowhere was the superior situation of the Armenians more evident than in education. In 1881 there was only one public secondary school for Muslims in the city of Erzurum, with 120 students. The students, all boys, had few textbooks and no maps. Sixty-five Muslims were enrolled in a better private school. Another 1,500 Muslim students were enrolled in one form of elementary school or another. Altogether, approximately ten per cent of the Muslim boys of Erzurum City attended school. 70% of the Armenian children, boys and girls, attended school. Each of the three Armenian millets–Gregorian, Catholic, and Protestant (American missionary), had its schools. They were well equipped, especially when compared to what was available for the Muslims.4 The primary cause for the difference between Muslim and Armenian education was obviously money. The Armenians could afford to pay for their education, and the American missionary schools were supported by donations from the United States.
Armenians, not Muslims, could expect help from Europeans. Armenians who were beset by Kurdish tribes or over-zealous tax collectors could rely on European consuls to advance their cause to local officials. This was a privilege seldom afforded to Muslims.
The Armenians also benefited because they could escape. Armenians were constantly leaving the Erzurum Province during the final Ottoman decades. Approximately 1,000 a year went to the Russian Empire. The Ottoman Administration frowned on this migration, but it could not stop it. Armenian men and sometimes families often traveled to Istanbul for work or as permanent migrants. Some went to America.
Did these migrants leave for political reasons? It is doubtful if that was ever a prime motivation. They left for understandable economic reasons. There were jobs and a better life in Istanbul, Erivan, and America. In each place, Armenians had support systems and charities that helped them get started in new lives.
Why did the Muslims, even more poor than the Armenians, not leave Erzurum as well? There were no such support systems for them. They were not welcome in America. The American Christian churches that sent missionaries to the Ottoman Empire also aided Armenians who went to America. They did not assist Muslims. Except for some skilled workers, Russia surely did not want more Muslim immigrants. And what would Erzurum’s Muslims do in Istanbul? Turks from Anatolia did routinely go to Istanbul for work, and had been doing so for quite some time. But those Turks, primarily from regions close to Istanbul and from the Black Sea provinces, had support groups–villagers who had gone before them and helped new migrants. Those support groups were not there for Erzurum Muslims.
What Drove the Armenian and Muslim Communities Apart?
All was not animosity between the Muslim and Armenian communities. The two communities had lived side by side for nearly 900 years. Merchants and craftsmen had natural business connections. In at least one incident, Muslim merchants contributed to a collection for destitute Armenians. Armenian leaders often had good relations with Ottoman officials. But many factors worked to drive the two communities apart. In times of famine in the 1870s and 1890s, for example, American missionaries distributed relief to the Armenians, but seldom or not at all to the Muslims. It was common for European consuls and American missionaries to write words such as, “Great distress is actually prevailing throughout the whole of Kurdistan. At Kharpout this almost amounts to famine. While at Bitlis, Van, and Erzeroum great poverty exists,”5 then to ask that aid be sent for the Christians alone! The famine and poverty of the Muslims were not their concern. All this cannot have helped inter-faith brotherhood.
The schools provided to the Christians by the Armenian Church and the Americans gradually led to an Armenian populace that was better educated and more able to cope with the modern world. This caused both Muslim resentment and a sense of superiority among the Armenians.
The psychological climate engendered by the relative educational superiority of the Armenians, by the favoritism showed them by Westerners, and by the promises of revolutionaries that Armenians would soon rule cannot be quantified. One British observer, the consul at Erzurum, made an attempt at a de******ion. (It must be remembered that the British did not easily criticize Armenians.)
The Armenians seem to possess in an eminent degree the art of making enemies, and competent observers are of opinion that a notable demoralization of the national character in these regions was produced by the lavish distribution of relief after the massacres of 1896. This decadence has been still further accentuated since the restoration of the Constitution and mainly by the pernicious influence of the Tashnakists and the Armenian refugees from the Caucasus. Immorality and drunkenness prevail among the Armenians of this district to an extent which would surprise the readers of British pro-Armenian literature, and even in the principal Armenian school of Erzurum, which is under the chairmanship of the Bishop, the doctrines of socialism and “free-love” are openly taught. The outcome of this state of things is a growing insolence on the part of the Armenians which is remarked on by all travellers and is assuredly not unnoticed by the *******, irritated as the latter already are by the efforts of the Tashnakists to acclimatize the tenets and outward manifestations of Western socialism; . . .6
What had led to such a state? It was not acts of the Ottoman Government that drove the Muslims and Armenians apart. Despite all the problems of Erzurum Province, the Muslims and Armenians had lived together under that government and under the same basic social and economic system for nearly 400 years. It was acts of the Russians and the Armenian Revolutionaries that finally split the communities and ultimately destroyed Ottoman Erzurum.
The Russians
The Russians began to suborn the loyalties of Armenians in the 1790s. They depended on Armenians as spies and even troops when they conquered Azerbaijan and Erivan. They encouraged the Armenians to move to territory the Russians had conquered, offering them incentives to do so.
In 1878, 25,000 Anatolian Armenians migrated to Russia, replacing 60,000 Turks evicted by the Russians. Why did the Armenians move? Undoubtedly one of the causes was fear of revenge. We know that the Armenians of the Ele?kirt Valley had welcomed the Russians and given them assistance. Armenians had persecuted the Muslims of Erzurum City when the Russians ruled and expected trouble once the Russians left. It is one thing to mistreat Turks when the Russian Army is protecting you, quite another to stand up to the Turks on your own.
The Russians offered free farms and homes to Armenians who would come into their Empire. The homes and farms of evicted Turks were empty, waiting for new dwellers. The Russians at least promised not to tax immigrants. For poor Armenians, it was a very tempting offer.
The Armenian support for Russian imperialism and the exchange of populations naturally caused fear and distrust between Muslims and Armenians. It was to the benefit of the Russians to foster that distrust.
The Russians had a very important strategic interest in the Erzurum Vilâyeti. Erzurum, as I am sure you know, was the keystone of Ottoman control of all of Anatolia. Impassible mountains meant that Russian invaders had very few possible paths to Central Anatolia. Ottoman forces in Northeastern Anatolia might have poor communications and limited supplies and manpower, but they did have good defensive terrain, exactly the sort of terrain that could be held by the Turkish askers, among the best defensive fighters in the world. The Russians knew this. They knew from the bloody battles of the War of 1877-78 that taking Eastern Anatolia would be a horrible task. They also knew that their invasion would be aided by an internal enemy that would disrupt supplies, hamper communications, and draw troops from the front to battle a rebellion behind the lines. That was to be the task of the Armenians.
Unlike the Ottomans, the Russians had good reason to want disorder in the Ottoman East. A weakened Ottoman Empire was good for the Russians, who hoped to conquer it. Troubles in Erzurum were also propaganda victories for the Russians. The Russians could depend on the fact that the sufferings of the Armenians would appear in the European press. They could count on American missionaries to send reports of real and imagined misery among the Armenians. No reports of the equal suffering of the Muslims would be sent, nor would they appear in European newspapers. Each report of suffering Armenians made it more difficult for European politicians to take the side of the Ottomans.
After the war of 1877-78 the Russians made it their business to foment unrest in the eastern provinces. They even aided Kurdish rebels against the Ottoman State. However, Russian activities had little success with the Kurdish tribes, perhaps, as will be seen, because the Russians were at the same time supporting the Armenian revolutionaries who were attacking the same Kurdish tribes.
The Russians must have been deeply involved with the activities of the Armenian revolutionaries. Until someone studies this period in Russian archives there is little direct evidence. It is known that the Russians promised the Armenians independence in Anatolia in World War I, a promise they cannot have meant to keep.7 Circumstantial evidence for Russian collusion with the Armenian societies is compelling. The societies held their meetings in Russian territory. Dashnak rebels repeatedly crossed the border from the Russian border with impunity, attacked Kurdish villages or Ottoman officials, then escaped across that same border. Russian rifles appeared in Armenian hands all across Eastern Anatolia. Armenian terrorists had agents within the Russian imperial armory at Tula who provided them with guns. Can anyone believe that the Russians were such fools that they had no idea what was happening. Did the Russian police or spies not notice that the Dashnaks were meeting in Tiflis? Did they not notice that guns were missing?
The Armenian Societies–Dashnaks and Hunchaks
Neither “revolutionaries” nor “rebels” is the best word for the Armenian terrorist groups, because it implies that the Armenian societies, the Dashnaks and Hunchaks, wished to overthrow their own government. The Hunchaks were founded in Switzerland by Russian Armenians. The society most involved in Erzurum, the Dashnaks, was founded and organized in the Russian Empire. Its most active members were in Russia. Yet the Dashnaks did not act to overthrow Russian rule in Erivan Province (today the Armenian Republic). They directed their attention to the Ottoman Empire.
The Armenian societies espoused the philosophies of revolutionary Europe. They were socialist, sometimes radically socialist, and surely nationalistic. They adapted the methods of revolutionary Europe to Anatolia. They developed cadres of supporters in Ottoman Anatolia, preparing for their ultimate revolt, but the Hunchaks and especially the Dashnaks were in no way indigenous to Anatolia. They were revolutionary organizations born in the soup of Russian revolution. From the Russian Empire they spread their message to Anatolia. Ottoman gendarmes arrested groups of Armenian rebels every year. These were usually crossing over from Russia. They carried Russian rifles and revolutionary propaganda printed in the Russian Empire.
Like their European counterparts, the Dashnaks and Hunchaks spent much of their energy on their own people, spreading their doctrine, arming supporters, and preparing for ultimate revolution. Closely following Marxist doctrine, they adopted violence as the necessary element of change.
In their first phase of activities, before World War I, Armenian revolutionaries seldom engaged in assassination of Ottoman officials. The first ones whom the revolutionaries intended to murder were members of Kurdish tribes. The intent of the Armenian revolutionaries was to foment reprisals, especially reprisals from Kurds. This was set out in the now famous report of the missionary educator, Cyrus Hamlin. He reported a meeting with an Armenian rebel. The Armenian stated that the rebels would attack Kurds, causing massacres of Armenians in retaliation. This, the Armenians assumed, would bring European intervention, as it had in Bulgaria, and lead to the creation of an independent Armenia. FO SOURCE? A naive belief, but one the Armenian revolutionary societies put into practice.
Reports of Armenian rebel actions were numerous: 200 revolutionaries killing 30 Kurds, wounding 11, and burning 25 houses in the village of Shato.8 There were pitched battles between rebels and Kurds in Hınıs.9 One large group of revolutionaries even tried, unsuccessfully, to enter the Ottoman Empire by attacking frontier outposts of the Ottoman military, through which they were forced to pass.10
On the eighth of November, 1899, a band of Armenian revolutionaries, armed with Russian rifles, crossed from Russia near Ele?kirt and entered the largely Armenian village of Hanzar, killing a number of Kurds. The kaymakam of Toprakkale marched on the village with a force of gendarmes. In the ensuing battle, an estimated 15 rebels, 30 villagers, and 14 gendarmes and officials were killed. The rebels escapped across the Russian border. It was rumored, although not substantiated, that Kurds from the surrounding area took revenge on the Armenians of Hanzar.11
The Armenians who carried out the raids on Kurds almost always came from Russian territory, occasionally passing through Iran on their way to Anatolia.
The neighboring provinces of Van, Bitlis, and Haleb experienced the same level of violence from the Armenian rebels. The modus operandi of the rebels was the same. Kurds were attacked in the hope of retaliation, which sometimes came. In some cases the rebels were killed or apprehended, but it was usually villagers–Muslim and Armenian, innocent and guilty alike–who suffered most.
The other group targeted for murder by the Armenian revolutionaries were Armenians themselves. The revolutionaries knew that elements of the Armenian Community were supporters of the Government. Merchants, many Community officials, and government officials (including Armenian policemen) depended on good relations with the state for their own advancement. Even ordinary members of the Armenian populace should have been willing to come forward with information on the rebels, if only for a monetary reward. One of the purposes of the Dashnak revolutionaries was to silence such men. The weapons were intimidation and murder.
Armenians were also murdered by Armenians in the quest for “national solidarity.” Those who opposed the revolutionaries were to be silenced, by murder if necessary. This is a form of terrorism seen in all later terrorist groups. They enforce their “revolution” by demanding money and support from everyone, especially those who want to oppose them. They silence those who stand in their way.
The police could not protect Armenian informers or businessmen who took the Ottoman side. “For the informers would have in the first place to fear the vengeance of the revolutionaries, against which the unpaid and inefficient police force are themselves powerless to protect them.”12
Records abound of Attacks upon Armenians by Armenian revolutionaries, such as the assassination of an Armenian who dared to serve on the government Administrative Council in Malatya. Radical nationalists who demanded independence murdered less radical Armenians who wished reform within the Ottoman Empire. Even the Armenian Patriarch in Istanbul was the subject of an assassination attempt by another Armenian.13
The methods of the rebels are illustrated in a letter from the British consul Cumberbatch in Erzurum:
Sir,
I have the honor to report that the emissaries of the revolutionary or ‘Hunchakist’ party are credited with the murder on the 5th instant of two Armenians of some position in this town, named Artin Effendi Serkissian, a lawyer, and Simon Agha Bosoyan, a merchant. They were stabbed in a most daring manner in a crowded thoroughfare and both died instantly afterwards. One man, a Russian Armenian of this place, has been arrested on suspicion.
It is generally thought that Artin Effendi was killed because he was suspected of having acted as an ‘informer’ and because he had quite recently refused to join the secret committee being formed here. It was not intended to injure Simon Agha but he must have got mortally wounded in defending his friend.
At Erzinghan, some ten days ago, another Armenian called Garabet Der Garabet was also murdered. He was considered a spy of Zekki Pasha and the same agency is credited with his death.
In addition to forbidding any Armenian to retain any post of Administrative employ, these even try to extort money from the richer Armenians, one man having, three days ago, been summoned to hand over three hundred pounds to their funds.
Even an Armenian youth of twenty, the only Christian student at the ‘Idadieh’ College here has, this week, had an anonymous letter put into his hand when he was standing alone at the door of the establishment, threatening him with death from the same hands which had recently killed Artin Efendi if he did not leave the school at once.
These cases will suffice to show the audacity and determination of the dangerous faction the authorities have now to deal with.14
The one activity that most indicated the future plans of the Armenian revolutionaries was the arming of their supporters in Eastern Anatolia. The Russian Armenians began to smuggle arms into Erzurum and other Ottoman provinces almost immediately after the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78. In some areas they had occupied during the war, especially in Beyazit, the Russians had armed the Armenians before they left.15 By 1880 bands of Armenians were crossing the border, leaving behind weapons when they returned to Russian territory. It was common knowledge that this transportation of weapons was taking place.
One example was the distribution of Russian Berdan military rifles in I?d?r, across the Russian border. The rifles were distributed to Ottoman subjects who produced papers proving they were Armenians. The guns were then smuggled into Erzurum by the purchasers. This was a public sale. The Russian police did nothing to interfere.16 Erzurum was alive with rumors, and often exaggerations, that the Armenians were arming themselves. It is certain, however, that the rural Armenians, as well as many in the city, were armed with Russian weapons. As mentioned above, the Armenian revolutionaries captured by Ottoman forces were usually armed with Russian rifles. Armenian revolutionaries were even captured in Erzurum, itself, with rifles. The rifles had been stamped with the name of the main Armenian revolutionary party, “Dashnaktsuthiun.”
Why did Armenian villages need to be so well armed? Contemporary observers were of two definite and differing schools of thought. Some, perhaps naive, commentators felt that the villagers were defending themselves from Kurdish depredations. They were only being assisted by the Armenian Revolutionary parties. Others felt that Armenians were being armed from Russia by the Dashnaks and Hunchaks in order to prepare for revolution, activities fostered by the Russians.
The British reported on such instances: In one, Ottoman forces found 34 Mauser rifles and 1,000 cartridges in “the village of Sitaouk, about ten miles distant from Erzeroum.” It was alleged the weapons were needed for defense, but all the rifles had “recently been smuggled from the Russian frontier, and they are all without stocks, apparently for convenience of transport and concealment.” They were being hidden in one Armenian house. The villagers, according to the British consul, had always been individually armed. This appears to have been a cache of arms, waiting for later use, not self-defense.17
The outbreak of the world war proved that Armenian arms caches had been secreted all over Eastern Anatolia, waiting for the moment of rebellion. Ottoman investigators found a great deal of arms hidden in basements, churches, and on farms, but these can only have been a small proportion of what was hidden.18 The proof lies in the tens of thousands of armed Armenians who rebelled in the Ottoman East. They were armed.
In the end it made no difference if the Armenians armed themselves out of revolutionary fervor or out of the desire for self-defense. When World War I began the Armenians were armed and ready to rebel. They proved willing to use their guns against the Ottoman Government and against local Muslims.

 

[PteX]

No matter what you claim.. You have to support these lies toward us coz you must cover your crimes and need these kind mud-throw claims ..

Israel was always supporting enemy of Turkiye especially pkk militants. You are always what you are !!

If you knew anything beyond the common "Israel is evil" rhetoric, you`d know that Israel was one of the few countries who continuously refused to acknowledge this massacre as a genocide because Turkey was once a good friend before AKP took power.