Ermeni Sorunu, Armenian Question, Der Armenier Konflikt, Question Armenienne - FORSNET
  INTRODUCTION
  TURCO-ARMENIAN RELATIONS
  HOW THE ARMENIAN ISSUE CAME ABOUT
  MASSACRES OF THE TURKS BY THE ARMENIANS
  APRIL 24, 1915
  RELOCATION
  ARMENIAN TERRORISM
  TURKISH DIPLOMATS KILLED BY ARMENIAN TERRORISTS
  IMPORTANT QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
  CHRONOLOGY
  ALBUM
  ARCHIVE DOCUMENTS
  REFERENCES
  SUPPORTERS






  ARTICLES

QUOTATIONS BY NON-TURKISH WRITERS AND SCHOLARS REGARDING THE ARMENIAN QUESTION

Demir Delen

PART 1

In their tireless propaganda efforts, Armenian activists resort to proven forgeries and distortions so that they can show the world, they were the innocent victims of a so-called genocide. The quotations below, all by non-Turkish authors, historians and politicians demonstrate clearly that, far from being innocent victims, Armenians actively participated in the First World War on the side of the Ottoman Empire's enemies and caused unspeakable atrocities against the Turkish population.

Truth never seems to be a hindrance for Armenian activists in pursuit of their political goals. When they needed the help of the western world, they claimed more Armenians were killed than their entire population. However, they brought all the claimed dead back to life in order to show how populous Armenians were in eastern Anatolia, to the victors of the First World War, during the negotiations at the Paris Peace Conference and the Treaty of Sevrés, so that they could substantiate their demand that an independent Armenian State must be established!

The following quotations from non-Turkish sources are categorized under three headings:
1. Armenian Revolutionary Bands and Atrocities
2. Armenian Propaganda
3. Armenian Cooperation with Russia and the Allies, against the Ottoman Empire.

1. ARMENIAN REVOLUTIONARY BANDS AND ATROCITIES:
1.1 Louise Nalbandian, The Armenian Revolutionary Movement, Berkeley 1963:
The programme of the Dashnaksutiun Party (Armenian Revolutionary Federation) was drafted during the General Congress in 1892. The methods to be used by the revolutionary bands organized by the Party were as follows:
a. To propagandize for the principles of the Dashnaksutiun and its objectives based on an understanding of, and in sympathy with, the revolutionary work.
b. To organize fighting bands, to work with them with regard to the above-mentioned issues and to prepare them for activity.
c. To use every means, by word and deed, to arouse the revolutionary activity and spirit of the people.
d. To use every means to arm the people.
e. To organize revolutionary committees and establish strong links between them.
f. To stimulate fighting and to terrorize government officials, informers, traitors, usurers and every kind of exploiter.
g. To organize financial districts.
h. To protect the peaceful people and the inhabitants against attacks by brigands.
i. To establish communications for the transportation of men and arms.
j. To expose government establishments to looting and destruction (p. 168).

1.2 Sir Mark Sykes, The Caliph's Last Heritage, London 1915:
As for the tactics of the revolutionaries, anything more fiendish one could not imagine - The assassination of Moslems in order to bring about the punishment of innocent men, the midnight extortion of money from villages which have just paid their taxes by day, the murder of persons who refuse to contribute to their collection boxes, are only some of the crimes of which Moslems, Catholics and Gregorians accuse them with no uncertain voice. The Armenian revolutionaries prefer to plunder their co-religionists to giving battle to their enemies; the anarchists of Constantinople throw bombs with the intention of provoking a massacre of their fellow-countrymen.

If the object of English philanthropists and the roving brigands (who are the active agents of revolution) is to subject the bulk of eastern provinces to the tender mercies of an Armenian oligarchy, then I cannot entirely condemn the fanatic outbreaks of the Moslems or the repressive measures of the Turkish Government. On the other hand, if the object of the Armenians is to secure equality before law and the maintenance of security and peace in the countries partly inhabited by Armenians, then I can only say that their methods are not those calculated to achieve success (p. 409).

1.3 William A. Langer, The Diplomacy of Imperialism, New York, 1960:
Revolutionary placards were being posted in the cities and there were not a few cases of the blackmailing of wealthy Armenians, who were forced to contribute to the cause. Europeans in Turkey were agreed that the immediate aim of the agitators was to incite disorder, bring about inhuman reprisals and so provoke the intervention of the powers. For that reason, it was said, they operated by preference in areas where the Armenians were in a hopeless minority, so that reprisals would be certain. One of the revolutionaries told Dr. Hamlin, the founder of Robert College, that the Hunchak bands would "watch their opportunity to kill Turks and Kurds, set fire to their villages, and then make their escape into the mountains. The enraged Moslems will then rise, and fall upon the defenseless Armenians and slaughter them with such barbarity that Russia will enter in the name of humanity and Christian civilization and take possession". When the horrified missionary denounced the scheme as atrocious and infernal beyond anything ever known, he received this reply: "It appears so to you, no doubt; but we Armenians have determined to be free. Europe listened to the Bulgarian horrors and made Bulgaria free. She will listen to our cry when it goes up in the shrieks and blood of millions of women and children. We shall do it" (p. 157).

1.4 Sydney Whitman, Turkish Memories, London 1914:
Shortly after the news had spread to Europe of the attack on the Ottoman Bank and the subsequent massacre of Armenians, a number of artists of illustrated newspapers arrived in Constantinople, commissioned to supply the demand for atrocities of the Million-headed-Tyrant. Among these was the late Mr. Melton Prior, the renowned war correspondent. He was a man of strenuous and determined temperament, one not accustomed to be the sport of circumstances but to rise superior to them. Whether he was called upon to take part in a forced march or to face a mad Mullah, he invariable held his own and came off victorious. But in this particular case, as he confided to me, he was in an awkward predicament. The public at home had heard of nameless atrocities and was anxious to receive pictorial representations of these. The difficulty was how to supply them with what they wanted, as the dead Armenians had been buried and no women or children had suffered hurt and no Armenian church had be!
en desecrated. As an old admirer of the Turks and as an honest man, he declined to invent what he had not witnessed. But others were not equally scrupulous. I subsequently saw an Italian illustrated newspaper containing harrowing pictures of women and children being massacred in a church. (p. 29)

"Do you believe that any massacres would have taken place if no Armenian revolutionaries had come into the country and incited the Armenian population to rebellion?" I asked Mr. Graves (The British Consul).

"Certainly not" he replied. "I do not believe that a single Armenian would have been killed". (p. 70)

1.5 Sir Edwin Pears, Forty Years in Constantinople, London 1915:
Under such circumstances the revolt of a handful of Armenians had not a chance of success and was therefore unjustifiable. As a friend to the Armenians, revolt seemed to me purely mischievous. Some of the extremists declared that while they recognized that hundreds of innocent persons suffered from each of these attempts, they could provoke a big massacre which would bring in foreign intervention. Such intervention was useless so long as Russia was hostile. Lord Salisbury had publicly declared that as he could not get a fleet over the Taurus mountains he did not see how England could help the Armenians, much as he sympathized with them (p. 155).

1.6 C.F. Dixon-Johnson, The Armenians, Blackburn 1916:
The advent of these revolutionary agents into Kurdistan had the inevitable result of embittering the former good relations of the Turkish Government and the resident Moslem population with the Christians and especially the Orthodox Armenian section of the inhabitants. This was natural for the reason that in Turkey the people have a horror of secret societies and plots, founded on the experience of their own suffering at the hands of the Greek Hetairia and the Bulgarian Komitadjis. The fears of the Turks and the Kurds were genuine. They believed that the members of the once loyal 'millet-i sadika' (the loyal nation) no longer merited the title and that they were arming and preparing to massacre the Moslems. The whole country became like a powder magazine (p. 24).

1.7 Clair Price, The Rebirth of Turkey, New York 1923:
Under the 1908 Constitution, the Enver Government had a right to mobilize Armenians of military age as well as Turks, but armed opposition broke out at once, notably at Zeitun..Along the eastern frontier, Armenians began deserting to the Russian Armies and the Enver Government, distrusting the loyalties of those who remained, removed them from the combatant force and formed them into labour gangs.

In April, Lord Bryce and the "Friends of Armenia" in London appealed for funds to equip these volunteers and Russia also was presumable not uninterested in them.These volunteer bands finally captured Van, one of the eastern provincial capitals late in April and having massacred the Turkish population, they surrendered what remained of the city to the Russian Armies in June. The news from Van affected the Turks precisely as the news from Smyrna affected them when the Greeks landed there in May 1919. The rumour immediately ran through Asia Minor that the Armenians had risen.


By this time, the military situation had turned sharply against the Enver Government. The Russian victory at Sarikamis was developing and streams of Turkish refugees were pouring westward into central Asia minor. The British had launched their Dardanelles campaign at the very gates of Constantinople and Bulgaria had not yet come in. It does not seem reasonable to assume that this moment, of all moments, would have been chosen by the Enver Government to take widespread measures against its Armenians unless it was believed that such measures were immediately necessary. Measures were taken (pages 86-87).

1.8 Felix Valyi, Revolutions in Islam, London 1925:
In April the Armenian revolutionaries seized the town of Van, established an Armenian "General Staff" there under the command of Aram and Vardan, which delivered up the town to the Russian troops on the 6th of May, after having freed the district of Van from Mohammedans.

Amongst the most notorious of the Armenian chiefs was Karekin Pastermadjian, a former member of the Turkish Parliament , known by the name of 'Garo' who put himself at the head of the Armenian volunteers at the time of the opening of hostilities between Turkey and Russia and the Turks accuse him of having set fire to all the Mussulman villages he found on his way and of massacring their inhabitants. It is known that the attempts made by Turkey to win the support of the "Dashnakzoutioun" party against Russia at the beginning of the war were repulsed in the month of September 1914, by the Armenian Congress at Erzurum, which declared itself 'neutral'. Nevertheless, the thousands of Russian bombs and muskets which were found in the hands of its members prove what this neutrality meant. And indeed the Turks attribute the Russian invasion of the north of Asia Minor to the behaviour of the Armenian bands whose attitude made the defence of the country exceedingly difficult (pages 233-234).

1.9 Niles, Emory and Sutherland, Arthur, U.S. 867.00/1005, Princeton, 11 October 1919:
(Captain Emory Niles and Mr. Arthur Sutherland were Americans ordered by the United States Government in 1919 to investigate the situation in eastern Anatolia.)

In the entire region from Bitlis through Van to Bayezit we were informed that the damage and destruction had been done by the Armenians, who, after the Russians retired, remained in occupation of the country and who, when the Turkish army advanced, destroyed everything belonging to the Musulmans. Moreover, the Armenians are accused of having committed murder, rape arson and horrible atrocities of every description upon the Musulman population. At first we were most incredulous of these stories, but we finally came to believe them, since the testimony was absolutely unanimous and was corroborated by material evidence. For instance, the only quarters left at all intact in the cities of Bitlis and Van are the Armenian quarters, as was evidenced by churches and inscriptions on the houses, while the Musulman quarters were completely destroyed. Villages said to have been Armenian were still standing whereas Musulman villages were completely destroyed.

1.10 McCarthy, Justin, Death and Exile, The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims 1821-1922, The Darwin Press Inc., 1995:
In the provinces in which the war was primarily fought-Van, Bitlis and Erzurum-at least 40 percent of the Muslims were dead at war's end. Of course Muslims were not the only ones to die. The Armenian death rate was at least as great and Armenian losses cannot be ignored. But the world has long known of the suffering of Armenians. It is time for the world to also consider the suffering of the Muslims of the east and the horror that it was. Like the Armenians, Muslims were massacred or died from starvation and disease in stupefying numbers. Like the Armenians their deaths deserve remembrance.

1.11 General Bronsart, Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, 24 July 1921:
As demonstrated by the innumerable declarations, provocative pamphlets, weapons, ammunition, explosives etc., found in areas inhabited by Armenians, the rebellion was prepared for a long time, organized, strengthened and financed by Russia. Information was received on time in Istanbul about an Armenian assassination attempt directed at high ranking state officials and officers.

Since all Muslims capable of bearing arms were in the Turkish army, it was easy to organize a terrible massacre by the Armenians against defenceless people, because the Armenians were not only attacking the sides and rear of the Eastern Army paralyzed at the front by the Russians, but were attacking the Muslim folk in the region as well. The Armenian atrocities which I have witnessed were far worse than the so-called Turkish brutality.

PART 2

2. ARMENIAN PROPAGANDA
2.1 C.F. Dixon-Johnson, The Armenians, Blackburn 1916:
We have no hesitation in repeating that these stories of wholesale massacre have been circulated with the distinct objective of influencing, detrimentally to Turkey, the future policy of the British Government when the time of settlement shall arrive. No apology, therefore, is needed for honestly endeavouring to show how a nation with whom we were closely allied for many years and which possesses the same faith as millions of our fellow-subjects, has been condemned for perpetrating horrible excesses against humanity on 'evidence' which, when absolutely false, is grossly and shamefully exaggerated (p. 61).

2.2 David G. Hogarth, A Wandering Scholar in the Levant, New York, 1896:
The Armenian, for all his ineffaceable nationalism, his passion for plotting and his fanatical intolerance, would be a negligible thorn in the Ottoman side did he stand alone. The Porte knows very well that while Armenian Christians are Gregorian, Catholic and Protestant, each sect bitterly intolerant of the others and moreover while commerce and usury are all in Armenian hands, it can divide and rule secure; but behind the Armenian secret societies (and there are few Armenians who have not committed technical treason by becoming members of such societies at some point of their lives) it sees the Kurd, and behind the Kurd the Russian; or looking west, it espies through the ceaseless sporadic propaganda of the agitators Exeter Hall and Armenian Committees. The Turk begins to repress because we sympathize and we sympathize because he represses and so the vicious circle revolves. Does he habitually, however, do more than repress? Does he, as administrator oppress? So far we have heard one version only, one part to this suit, with its stories of outrage and echoing through them a long cry for national independence. The mouth of the accused has been shut hitherto by fatalism, by custom, by the gulf of misunderstanding which is fixed between the Christian and the Moslem.

In my own experience of western Armenia, extending more or less over four years up to 1894, I have seen no signs of a Reign of Terror. Life in Christian villages has not shown itself outwardly to me as being very different from life in the villages of Islam, nor the trade and property of Armenians in towns to be less secure than those of Moslems. There was tension, there was friction, there was a condition of mutual suspicion as to which Armenians have said to me again and again "If only the patriots would leave us to trade and to till!". The Turk rules by right of five hundred years' possession, and before his day the Byzantine, the Persian, the Parthian, the Roman preceded each other as over-lords of Greater Armenia back to the misty days of the first Tigranes. The Turk claims certain rights in this matter - the right to safeguard his own existence, the right to smoke out such hornets' nests as Zeitun, which has annihilated for centuries past the trade of Eastern Taurus, t!he right to remain dominant by all means not outrageous (p. 147).

2.3 E. Alexander Powell, The Struggle for Power in Moslem Asia, New York, 1925:
Atrocity stories have been vastly overdone; some of the more recent massacres have been wholly nonexistent. One of the local (Constantinople) members of the press and of a relief organization told some friends openly that he could only send anti-Turkish dispatches to America because that is what gets the money.

2.4 Arthur Ponsonby, Falsehood in War-Time, New York 1928
A circular was issued by the War Office inviting reports on war incidents from officers with regard to the enemy and stating that strict accuracy was not essential so long as there was inherent probability (p 20).

Atrocity lies were the most popular of all, especially in this country and America; no war can be without them. Slander of the enemy is esteemed a patriotic duty (p 22).

It is impossible to describe all the types of atrocity stories. They were repeated for days in brochures, posters, letters and speeches. Renowned persons, who otherwise would be hesitant to condemn even their mortal enemies for lack of evidence, did not hesitate to accuse an entire nation of having committed every imaginable savagery and inhuman action (p. 129).

2.5 Lamsa, George M., The Secret of the Near East, Philadelphia, 1923:
In some towns containing ten Armenian houses and thirty Turkish houses, it was reported that 40,000 people were killed, about 10,000 women were taken to the harem, and thousands of children left destitute; and the city university destroyed, and the bishop killed. It is a well-known fact that even in the last war the native Christians, despite the Turkish cautions, armed themselves and fought on the side of the Allies. In these conflicts, they were not idle, but they were well supplied with artillery, machine guns and inflicted heavy losses on their enemies (page 133).

2.6 Prime Minister Millerand, Archives des Affaires Etrangeres de France, Vol 9, Folio 3:
I am surprised that London should possess information which no one here is aware of and is unable to document. As a result, it has been impossible until now to determine exactly that Armenians have been massacred in any area. There is much talk about it but no one was able to give me certain and exact information. In particular the Armenian losses in Marash appear to be absolutely false. Apparently, the Armenians took part in the struggle of our troops in this city and had casualties like all the fighters. A serious study of the figures shows that these Armenian casualties do not exceed 1000.
2.7 Clair Price, The Rebirth of Turkey, New York 1923:
By the end of October, the late Miss Annie T. Allen and Miss Florence Billings, the Near East Relief's representatives in Ankara (Angora), compiled a report on the state of the Turkish villages which the Greeks had burned during their retreat and forwarded it to the Near East Relief's headquarters in Constantinople. But the Near East Relief has never published that report, just as Mr. Lloyd George never published the Bristol report on Greek misdeeds at Izmir (Smyrna) (p. 189).

2.8 L. Evans, United States Policy and the Partition of Turkey, 1914-1924, Baltimore 1965:
Quoting from the American High Commissioner Admiral Bristol's report: "The United States should raise its voice against the plans of the Allies and the American people should be told the facts. They (the Turks) were still human and still had rights and the other side of the coin was obscured by the flood of Greek and Armenian propaganda painting the Turks as completely inhuman and undeserving of any consideration, while suppressing all the facts in favor of the Turks." (page 272)

2.9 Migirdic Agop, The Turkish Armenians, Istanbul 1922:
The Turkish Armenian does not know what a revolution is. He fears a revolution like death. But if there is something he is more afraid of, it is the revolutionary Armenian, the unreasoning revolutionary Armenians without a conscience who dragged him from misery to misery for several years with the thought of doing a good deed for him.

The Turkish Armenian have to confess that this enemy of their own kind has been everywhere and has done its work everywhere. It also had many followers in Russia, England and Turkey. Because it is known as a social truth that divisive movements and propaganda among groups in a society influence the masses very deeply. When these witless wretches came up with the idea of establishing a large state with the Armenians in Caucasia and Turkey, the God-fearing Armenians with good conscience who were aware of where the best interests of the nation lay, were overcome with sadness: 'An independent state, which will also include within its borders some of the Turkish provinces, is that it? This would be the destruction of Armenians' they said.
This was the truth.! It was impossible for any Armenian with a little bit of discernment not to see it. Because these people were thinking that they could change the bed of a large river with eight or ten pieces of stone.

This large river had opened its real bed by flowing for centuries on a strong surface. To change this direction was to tear Armenian interests from the tranquil flow of the river, to push them to draught-ridden lands and to strangle them there for ever. Those feeble minded persons failed to see that the foreigners who supported their revolution and evil deeds and championed their causes in their newspapers did not undertake such action for the love of Armenians. The aim, and the sole aim of these so-called protective powers was to cause the shedding of blood in regions which they earmarked for their hegemony and to take over these regions with the pretext of cleaning the blood.

History is still recording what imperialism is capable of doing in places it sets its eyes on. But it was impossible to make the public-spirited revolutionaries comprehend this. The anarchists and propagandists among them who could be useful neither to themselves nor to their communities in any other way were receiving salaries. They were also receiving what they conceived to be pledges. Overwhelmed under these condition, they believed there was Turkish oppression, and they also made their compatriots believe in their lies.

The last quarter of a century of Turkey's history is filled with some Armenian events. Although these events were supposedly aimed at some goals harmful to Turkey, in fact they were only the oppression of Armenians by Armenians. If the causes and reasons for each event are analyzed one by one and if the events are analyzed meticulously, the only conclusion that will be arrived at is the one we have stated in the previous sentence; the oppression of Armenians by Armenians.

PART 3

3.1 K.S. Papazian, Patriotism Perverted, Boston 1934:
When the world war broke out in Europe, the Turks began feverish preparations for joining hands with the Germans. In August 1914 the young Turks asked the Dashnag Convention, then in session in Erzurum, to carry out their old agreement of 1907 and start an uprising among the Armenians of the Caucasus against the Russian government. The Dashnagtzoutune refused to do this and gave assurance that in the event of war between Russia and Turkey, they would support Turkey as loyal citizens. On the other hand, they could not be held responsible for the Russian Armenians..The fact remains, however, that the leaders of the Turkish-Armenian section of the Dashnagtzoutune did not carry out their promise of loyalty to the Turkish cause when the Turks entered the war. The Dashnagtzoutune in the Caucasus had the upper hand. They were swayed in their actions by the interests of the Russian government and disregarded entirely, the political dangers that the war had created for the Armenian!s in Turkey. Prudence was thrown to the winds; even the decision of their own convention of Erzurum was forgotten and a call was sent for Armenian volunteers to fight the Turks on the Caucasus front (p. 37).

3.2 Rafael de Nogales, Four Years Beneath the Crescent, New York 1926, (English translation by Muna Lee):
After hostilities had actually commenced, the Deputy to the Assembly for Erzurum, Garo Pasdermichian passed over with almost all the Armenian troops and officers of the Third Army to the Russians; to return with them soon after burning hamlets and mercilessly putting to the knife all of the peaceful Mussulman villagers that fell into their hands. These bloody excesses had as their necessary corollary the immediate disarmament by the Ottoman authorities of the gendarmes and other Armenian soldiers who still remained in the army (probably because they had been unable to escape) and the utilization of their labour in the construction of highways and in carrying provisions back and forth across the mountains. The altogether unjustifiable desertion of the Armenian troops, united to the outrages they committed afterwards, on their return, in the sectors of Bashkaleh, Serail and Bayacet, did not fail to alarm the Turks and rouse their fear lest the rest of the Armenian population in the frontier provinces of Van and Erzurum revolt likewise and attack them with the sword. This indeed is precisely what happened a few weeks after my coming, when the Armenians of the vilayet of Van rose en masse against our expeditionary army in Persia; thus giving rise to bloody and terrible occurrences which, under the circumstances, might have been foreseen (p. 45).

3.3 Hovhannes Katchaznouni, The Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnagtzoutiun) Has Nothing to Do Anymore, Bucharest 1923, (translated from the original by Matthew A. Callender):
(Mr. Katchaznouni was the first prime minister of the Independent Armenia).

In the beginning of fall 1914, when Turkey had not yet entered the war but was preparing to, Armenian volunteer groups began to be organized with great zeal and pomp in Trans-Caucasia. In spite of the decision taken a few weeks before at the General Committee in Erzurum, the Dashnagtzoutune actively helped the organization of the aforementioned groups and especially arming them against Turkey..There is no point in asking today whether our volunteers should have been in the foreground. Historical events have a logic of their own. In the fall of 1914 Armenian volunteer groups were formed and fought against the Turks. The opposite could not have happened, because for approximately twenty years the Armenian community was fed a certain and inevitable psychology. This state of mind had to manifest itself and it happened.

3.4 Philippe de Zara, Mustapha Kemal, Dictateur, Paris 1936:
After having accomplished the minimum of their duty as Ottoman citizens, the Armenians began to encourage the activities of the enemy. Their ambiguous attitude had certainly little to do with loyalty. But which Westerner would have the right to accuse them when traditions taught by Europe made the insubordination of the Sultan's Christian subjects the most sacred of obligations. An insubordination which was often sanctioned by giving autonomy, if not sovereignty. Nevertheless, how can anybody deny that in the opinion of the Turks, according to the law of all the states, the conduct of the Armenians facilitating during the war the task of the adversary, van be recognized as anything but a crime of high treason?..The Armenian committees, divided among themselves for internal issues, were often in agreement to facilitate the advance of the Russian armies; they were attempting to obstruct the retreat of Turkish troops, to stop the convoys of provisions, to form bands of francs!-tireurs. Mass desertions took place in the Eastern provinces; Armenians thus formed many troops officered by Russian officers. Here and there local revolts occurred. The leaders were setting the examples; two Armenian deputies fled to Russia. A literature of hatred was recalled. "Let the Turkish mothers cry..Lets make the Turk taste a little grief". The culpability of Armenians leaves no doubt (page 159).

3.5 Stanford J. Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey,Cambridge University Press, 1977, Volume II:
Armenians again flooded the czarist armies, and the czar returned to St. Petersburg confident that the day finally had come for him to reach Istanbul. Hostilities were opened by Russians, who pushed across the border on November 1, 1914, though the Ottomans stopped them and pushed them back a few days later. A subsequent Russian counter offensive in January caused the Ottoman army to scatter and the way was prepared for a new Russian push into eastern Anatolia, to be accompanied by an open Armenian revolt against the sultan. Armenian leaders in Russia now declared their open support of the enemy and there seemed no other alternative. It would be impossible to determine which of the Armenians would remain loyal and which would follow the appeals of their leaders. As soon as the spring came, then, in mid-May 1915 orders were issued to evacuate the entire Armenian population from the provinces of Van, Bitlis, and Erzurum, to get them away from all areas where they might under!mine the Ottoman campaigns against Russia or against the British in Egypt, with arrangements made to settle them in towns and camps in the Mosul area of Northern Iraq. In addition, Armenians residing in the countryside (but not in the cities) of the Cilician districts as well as those of north Syria were to be sent to central Syria for the same reason. Specific instructions were issued for the army to protect the Armenians against nomadic attacks and to provide them with sufficient food and other supplies to meet their needs during the march and after they were settled. Warnings were sent to the Ottoman military commanders to make certain that neither the Kurds nor any other Muslims used the situation to gain vengeance for the long years of Armenian terrorism. The Armenians were to be protected and cared for until they returned to their homes after the war (page 315).

3.6 Boghos Nubar, Letter to Times of London, dated January 30, 1919:
(Mr. Nubar was the head of the Armenian National Delegation to the Paris Peace Conference held by the victors of the WWI)

The Armenians have been, since the beginning of the war, de facto belligerents - since they fought alongside the Allies on all fronts - in Palestine and Syria, where the Armenian volunteers, recruited by the Armenian National Delegation at the request of the French government, made up more than half of the French contingent. In the Caucasus, where, without mentioning the 150,000 Armenians in the Imperial Russian Army, more than 40,000 of their volunteers offered resistance to the Turkish Armies.

3.7 Lieutenant Colonel T. Williams (Labour Party M.P.), Parliamentary Debates (Commons), London 25.ii.1924, vol. 170:

The Armenians were very well treated for hundreds of years by the Turks, until Russia, in the first place, started using them as pawns for purely political purposes; they exploited them as Christians, solely as pawns.

3.8 A. H Arslanian, British Wartime Pledges, 1917-1918: The Armenian Case, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 13, 1978:

British promises to Armenians were exactly like their promises to Arabs in Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia; they were made with the purpose of encouraging the war efforts of the Armenians, to influence neutral states in favor of England and to excite the separatist tendencies in ethnic minorities under the rule of these neutral states so as to make their enemy, the Ottoman Empire, collapse from the inside (page 522).

3.9 Lord Curzon, PRO, FO. 800/151, 6.xii.1921:

I think Armenians know that among the Great Powers, Her Majesty's Government have always been their best friend and most loyal supporters..But you cannot expect this country - or any other one - to choose any area in Turkey, to chase away from there all other races, to increase the Armenian population there under the shadow of British bayonets, and to thus organize a national Armenian existence there with exorbitant taxes to be extracted from the British people. Even the thought of it cannot go beyond being a raw fancy.

 

 
 
All Rights Reserved. © FORSNET