|
PROPAGANDA
We
can easily say that the weakest point of Turks is propaganda.
The situation was the same in the Ottoman State, as well;
and it has been the same in the Republic of Turkey. For Turks
propaganda meant responding the articles and false claims.
That is, nothing but a passive effort aiming at self-defence.
This approach provided the comfort and freedom of activity
for the other side to lay the blame on Turkey.
The
most intensive period, when the propaganda against Turkey
and the Turks occurred in America, was the year 1923. Powell
writes about its reasons as follows:
“The
reasons for the deep-rooted hostility against the Turks can
be cited like that: The oppression policy against the Christian
minority and especially the Armenians; secondly, religious
prejudices and political propaganda. It is hard to say where
the former ends and the latter one starts. Thirdly, the worry
and the disappointment because of the re-emergence of a country,
which we considered as defeated and disintegrated; and finally,
the insistent rejection of the Turks to defend themselves.”
Powell
writes about the last reason in the page 32 of his book and
in his article in 1922, he reports the conversation he had
with Sultan Vahdettin, in Yildiz Palace and the statements
of the Sultan as follows:
“Your
newspapers and the magazines would not publish it, if we sent
an article written by a Turk. If it was published, your people
would not read this; if they read it they would not believe
in it. Even if we sent an expert, who can express the Turkish
opinion in your own language to America, can this person find
unbiased masses of listeners?”
Perhaps
the words of the Sultan are right. Therefore, again in page
10 of the same book, it is said that one of the esteemed religious
people of New England, whose name is not stated, says as follows:
“I do not want to hear the truth concerning Turks. I have
already changed my opinion about them.” This is because
Turks were silent all the time and its opponents propagated
against them and the religious and political considerations
made an impression. Besides this, the mentality like “somehow
or other it would not be published; even if it was published
people would not read; even if it was read people would not
believe”, was an associate element which caused the development
of an approach against Turkey and production of an easy and
quick result of contrary propaganda. Generally, almost in
every country there is tendency to believe that the article
in a newspaper gives facts.
It
is obvious how the religion factor and political considerations
have an associate role in the development and adoption of
a disadvantageous ambience against Turkey. When the wise propaganda
is involved the situation becomes worse. The reality in the
reflected news diminishes or is totally lost, let alone reflect
unilateral news. In the book the statements given prove this
thesis:
“Events
of violence were greatly exaggerated. Some of the violence
supposed to have happened recently did not even occur. One
of the local press representatives (Istanbul) of the American
relief organisation told his friends frankly that he could
only send the news against the Turks; because it was what
earned him money.”
“The
fact that they did not want to publish the report is not incomprehensible.
Additionally, M. Venizelos laid all his weight. He objected
to the publication of the incidents when the names of the
witnesses were concealed and which were established without
the presence of the Greek representative. It was rightful
to behave like this not within the framework of the western
commission but the local Greek authorities. The people, who
unveiled the information against Greece lived in the regions
under the Greek occupation and they could not be exposed to
Greek retaliation. The same legal concerns were valid for
the Bryce Report, which was about the treatment of the Armenians
in the Ottoman Empire and the German brutality in Belgium.
Despite the same reasons, the allied governments did not hesitate
to publish the above mentioned reports.”
The
Bryce Report, that Toynbee mentioned, is the Blue Book of
the British, of which he was the editor.
However,
the opposite occasions seldom occurred. The British had to
evacuate Baku on 18 September 1918. When the newspapers published
this news, they mentioned the disloyalty of the Armenians.
The British propaganda services seriously became anxious about
it and tried to remove the effect of the news. The below mentioned
lines of a memorandum, which was prepared with this objective,
are very important:
“To
discredit the Armenians means to weaken the struggle for Turkish
hostility. It was difficult to eliminate the conviction that
the Turkish people who were trying to with disasters continuously,
are noble people. This news will revive this conviction and
will harm the prestige of the Zionists and the prestige of
Arabs. (...) The Turkish treatment towards the Armenians is
the greatest leverage of the Government of the Majesty to
provide the acceptance of the radical solution for the Turkish
issue at home and abroad.”
It
is useful to have a look at what kind of organisation the
British established in order to take measures for the propaganda:
“The
first thing that I heard concerning the propaganda department
was that on August 1914 in Walton Health Golf Club, on Sunday,
following a lunch, Mr. T.P. O’Connor told Lloyd George that
it was necessary to respond to the propaganda, which was launched
by the German in America by distributing brochures in the
streets, and giving them to the passengers getting of the
ships. Upon this, Lloyd George said, see this issue, what
can Charlie do, consider this. Masterman accepted it.”
Mr.
Masterman was an old Member of Parliament, and a member of
the House of Commons. After this date, Mr. Masterman established
the propaganda bureau and became the head of it. The presence
of the bureau was concealed. Mr. Masterman resigned his post
in the National Health Insurance Commission and he transformed
the working place of this Commission “Wellington House”, into
the headquarters of the bureau and it was recorded as “Wellington
House” in the documents.
The
activity domain of the “Wellington House” is described as
follows:
“To
disseminate the incidents like the struggle of the Allies;
the efforts of the British; the things done by the Navy, Army
and the merchant Marine; the economic and military capacities
of the Empire, the reasons and the goals of the war; the crimes
and the brutality of Germany and its allies; the struggle
of Belgium, the incidents which prove the non-humanistic side
of the submarine war. The means, which are used are books,
brochures, magazines, diagrams, maps, posters, postcards,
pictures, photographs and exhibitions.”
It
was stated that only in Britain, the department published
17 million copies.
At
the end of the 3rd report of 118 pages concerning
the activities of Masterman's Bureau, there is the list of
the published brochures and the books. At the end of the second
half of 1916, the number of the published brochures and books
is 182. We come across the names of writers like Max Aitken,
William Archer, Balfour, James Bryce, E. T. Cook, Conan Doyle,
Alexander Gray, Archibald Hurd, Rudyard Kipling, A. Lowenstein,
C. F. G. Masterman, A. J. Toynbee, H. G. Wells. One of the
three books of Toynbee is “ The Tyrannies on Armenians”.
All
the references in the “Blue Book”, which was published by
the Masterman’s Bureau and re-published by an Armenian publishing
house in America, are the Armenian newspapers like “Horizon”
published in Tiblisi, “Armenia” published in Marseilles, “Ararat”
published in London, “Gotchnag” published in New York, and
the Committee of Armenian Tyranny in America, which reflected
the information that was collected from the missionaries.
It is evident what kind of book it would be, which was based
on these sources. In the meantime, it is useful to note that
although the Armenians in Istanbul and Izmir were not replaced,
in the map given in this book it looks as if they have been
replaced.
After
the explanation on how the Blue Book was written, it is necessary
to quote from two writers who studied these issues and how
the propaganda materials was collected. The first writer is
Arthur Ponsoby and the name of his book is “The Lies In the
War Time”. Ponsoby was a member of the Liberal Party in the
House of Commons as from 1910 until 1918. Later on, he was
joined to the Labour Party. He was a person, who was against
war. He published his book in 1928. The interesting parts
which tell about the methods of propaganda are as follows:
“The
War-Office issued a circular and invited the Officers to report
on the war incidents about the enemy and had added that the
incidents did no have to be real, a normal probability was
enough.” (Page 20)
“Lies
about brutality are one the most satisfactory ones: Especially
in this country (Britain) and America, no war can be without
them. To discredit the enemy can be considered as patriotism.”
(Page 22)
“Even
in ordinary incidents, of no importance, the witnessing of
people would not create absolute confidence. At a moment when
prejudices, enthusiasm, ambition and patriotism are mixed
with sentiments, the statements made by a person has no value.
It is impossible to block the dissemination of brutal stories.
They were reiterated with brochures, posters, letters and
speeches for many days. Popular figures, who would avoid to
sentence their mortal enemies because of lack of evidence,
did not hesitate be the leaders who accuse a nation of all
kinds of brutalities and unnatural murders.”(Page 129)
“A
photograph, taken by a camera has a great effect on the people
because it is reliable. There is nothing more authentic than
an instantaneous photograph. Nobody would think of doubting
the authenticity of a photograph. Because of this, if it is
false, it takes time to reveal it. During the war, the photograph
assemblage became an industry. All the states did this; but
the experts were the French.” (Page 135)
This
expression may seem vague. Therefore it is appropriate to
give some examples:
“In
Europe, soon after the news was realised about the storming
of Ottoman Bank by Armenians and attacks on the Armenians,
some of the artists from illustrated newspapers were sent
to Istanbul to draw the pictures of brutal incidents. One
of the well-known war correspondents, Mr. Melton Prior was
among them. He was a man of energetic and determined nature.
He had an independent character. He told me that he was in
a very delicate position because of his special task. People
in his country heard about brutal and violent incidents and
were eager to see pictures about them. Since the deceased
Armenians were buried, the women and children were not harmed
and none of the Armenian churches were attacked, providing
these pictures was a problem. Being an honest man who appreciated
the Turks, he refused to contrive false pictures of scenes
he had not witnessed. However, the others were not as honest
as he was. Consequently, I saw, in an Italian illustrated
newspaper, horrible pictures, which showed the massacred women
and children.”
“One
of the up-front names, that was mentioned on the occasion
of the so-called brutal correctional measures, was Musir Sakir
Pasha, who was sent to Anatolia to make reforms. It was rumoured
all over the world that while the Field Marshall was in Erzurum
on October 1895 that is during Armenian Revolt, his chain
watch in his hands, he was instructing the soldiers to kill
the Armenians for one and a half hours more- two hours in
some of the versions-... Taking into account the objective
of our trip, we visited the British Consul, Mr. Graves; the
Governor, Mehmet ªerif Rauf Pasha; The French Consul M. Roqueferrier
and the Russian Consul, M. V. A. Maximov. We asked these people
whether they believed the rumors about ªakir Pasha. M. Roqueferrier
told us that these were ridiculous stories, that were made
up for fun and he added some words of appreciation for Sakir
Pasha.”
“Russian
Consul, M. Maximov said: It is not my responsibility to contradict
these stories. What I can tell you about ªakir Pasha is that
it is true that he is very brave and kindhearted. I have known
him for long years. He is my friend. The British Consul, Mr.
Graves said I was not there. I did not talk to him concerning
this subject. However the Governor said that this is not true.
This is sufficient for me because I believe what Rauf Pasha
says without any hesitation.”
“I
asked Mr. Graves, “Do you suppose that any massacre would
occur, if the Armenian rebels did not encourage the Armenian
for the rebellion.” He replied, “certainly not. Not a single
would have been killed.”
Nevertheless,
this information never published in the western press. As
it is stated in these words:
“At
the end of October (1922), the representative of the Near
East Relief Organisation, late Miss Annie T. Allen and Miss
Florence Billings sent a report to the headquarters of the
organisation in Istanbul. The report, consisted of the condition
of the Turkish villages, which the Greeks set on fire while
they were retreating. The organisation never published the
report, as Lloyd George did not publish the Bristol Report
concerning the catastrophe in Izmir caused by the Greeks.”
Truly,
Lloyd George did not publish the Bristol Report.
“During
the massacres in 1905, many photographs were taken in Russia.
These photographs belonged to a group of corpses, surrounded
by a crowd. One of these photographs was published in “Le
Mirroir” on 14 June 1915 under the headline of "the murders
in Poland by the German gangs". Similar pictures, were
published in many other newspapers.” (Page 136)
The
second writer is Allen Lane and the name of the book is “Evdeki
Atesi Yanik Tutun” (Keep the Firs at Home on). The first page
of the book gives, the speech given by the US. President Coolidge
on the occasion of Journalists Association. The President
says the following: “The propaganda tries to reflect some
parts of the incidents; block the relations between one and
another and come to conclusions, which are impossible to attain
if the series of the incidents are examined thoroughly.”
Some
of the passages from the book are as follows:
“The
objective of the propaganda is to simplify. It creates a way
of thinking, which will vindicate the fights, with the continuous
reiterations for a long time. It does this through the methods
which the organisations responsible for propaganda and the
news agencies will accept. The propagandist will create simple
and believable descriptions and fiction because these will
fit the beliefs which the people are actually invited to believe.
As Gobel said in the successive war, “propaganda is to submit
evidences, which people cannot find and verify by themselves,
to naive people the issues, they think over and have wished
for. (Page 3)
“In
the time of war, this is, above all, to create the expected
outlook and behaviour of the enemy in accordance with the
prejudices about their behaviour. This necessitates concealing
of the news that will make the enemy look and the submission
of the news in a way, that will always arouse hatred for the
enemy.”(Page 3)
“The
brutal stories appear in every war. The goal is to create
an image which is inspired by war and which will arouse fear
on it.”(Page 3)
“War
is presented to the people by means of universal and simple
ideals on which nobody can oppose and which are known by everybody.
These ideals are the symbols of the national virtues such
as freedom, justice, democracy, and Christianity.” (Page 4)
“Characteristic
brutal stories have come from the correspondents, who are
far from the operation area. Unchangeably, these are told
by some of the refugees whose identities were concealed. More
than after these stories give second-hand information” (Page
84).
The
subject of propaganda can be summarised by the words of C.F.
Dixon Johnson:
“The
emergence of the stories concerning the massacre of the masses
is disadvantageous for Turkey at the final vindication. We
do not hesitate to reiterate that this is the evident objective
of the direction of the British Government’s policy. The nation,
with which we have close alliance ties and which is co-religionist
of millions of our citizens, is accused of committing horrible
crimes against humanity by relying on the evidences, which
are exaggerated considerably and shamelessly. There is no
need to apologise for trying to accuse it honourably.”
REFERENCE:
Gürün,
Kamuran, Ermeni Dosyasi, TTK Basimevi, Ankara, 1983, pp. 40-44
|
