Tweet
THE ARMENIAN EXODUS
Atlas, Turkey
http://www.kesfetmekicinbak.com/kultur/tarih/0069 1/
Oct 11 2007
Anatolia, surrounded by war, had lost its peace and order as a result
of the Armenian revolts, which broke out one after the other, and by
famine and epidemics.
The gangs struck, these attacks were retaliated, and blood was
shed everywhere. Under these circumstances, compulsory immigration
was decreed, resulting in the death of hundreds of thousand civil
Armenians, including women, men and children.Under these circumstances,
compulsory immigration was decreed, resulting in the death of hundreds
of thousand civil Armenians, including women, men and children. Perhaps
an introductory sentence that does not use the great pains and the
tragic events of the past as a political vehicle can be proposed:
They were also natives of this land!
Written by GURSEL GONCU
The tragedy of hundreds of thousands
The pains that were suffered 86 years ago carried us to Van, the
probable starting point of the events. We were greeted first by the
poet Refik Durbaþ' verses in the sunniest city of Turkey:
"The sky, the sky alone is blue:
The rest is a stopped sundial."
If you were not interested in the painful side of realities, you
might very easily feel yourself in a dreamland when you come to Van.
Its geographical situation is so magnificent that it can move atheists
to review their beliefs and simply overwhelm the faithful.
After a decade of trouble, the people seem to have pulled themselves
together. They believe that the surrounding natural beauty will bring
much better days in the future. Although they have lived through
years of distress, they can approach the issues with optimism and
a sense of humour. They say: `It is true that livestock raising has
almost stopped due to the terror and prohibitions; we could not move
to the hamlets to take care of our herds; bee keeping has lost its
vitality; the economy has come to a standstill; we have lost money;
but nature has had an opportunity to revive itself and the fruits are
now sweeter than ever, wildlife and game animals abound more than ever:
to tell the truth, these are Van's best days..."
We come to the main issue and ask: "How were the times of
co-existence with Armenians?" A shadow of worry and sadness passes
over their faces..." Everything was different then. "Everything was
perfect. People here lived in an atmosphere of great friendliness
and affection until the First World War."
Almost everyone whom we talked to in Van speaks of the Armenians
with sympathy. Despite the anguish suffered by their fathers and
grandfathers, the main part of the common memory consists of kind
and good things.
Another point on which everyone agrees is this: If all those painful
events had not happened; if we could have lived peacefully together
with Armenians as before, and if they had not gone away, Van would
have become the Paris of the East...
So what happened? Why did people who had for centuries lived together
in a physical, geographical and moral proximity become enemies?
Hundreds of thousand people on both sides were destroyed by the
killings, massacre and deportation.
But why?
Looking down from the Van Fortress onto the old town, which was
razed to the ground during the events of 1915 and now lies in ruins,
we start a journey in time. But the clicks of the camera will always
keep our eyes on today.
Politics: from today to yesterday J.F.Kennedy said: "A problem becomes
a problem only when you start to take interest in it." Actually,
the "Armenian Problem' (as it is called in related literature),
is not a new one; it first began to appear in the last quarter of
the 19th century. However, we only realised that we were facing a
serious problem after the French Parliament passed the Draft Act on
the Armenian Genocide. After this unfortunate event, the widespread
official view that, to this day, claimed to "leave this issue to
history" was transformed into "leaving this issue to historians". The
Armenian problem, which formerly was of no interest to anyone in
Turkey except for a few scholars and historians, has now become the
top issue on the agenda of both the media and the men in the street.
After meaningless and childish reactions such as saying "France should
first consider Algiers; no, the truth is that Armenians killed Turks;
let's sell our Renault; let's not buy Peugeot; let's not use the
word cinema; let's not inhale oxygen", we are finally approaching a
more serious and logical point. Every sensible person can clearly
see that this decision taken by Paris is part of daily political
machinations and of various economic/strategic plans targeting the
Caucasus. Trying to gain political advantage by using deaths has
always been a part of traditional politics in many Western countries,
including France. Nevertheless, this decision had a positive aspect:
it opened the way for the discussion of the events of 1915. Is this
a positive development? Of course it is. The Armenian problem-passed
over for years with empty comments and finally turned into a taboo
subject by our guilt complex and fear of separatism-unfortunately
created an "Armenian Problem" in the minds of the Westerners. Many of
our researchers and historians preferred to sidestep the issue. We
gave the impression that we were trying to cover up some events,
to hush up something. Consequently, only one in ten of the 20,000
books and articles written on this issue are of Turkish origin;
and only 3 to 5 of them have been published in the West.
The competition for photographs of corpses It is an indisputable fact
that the issue has a very important political significance. It has
always had this significance, and it will continue to have it. But
it is also a fact that the majority of the Turkish people do not take
a political view on this issue.
Expressing a deeply xenophobic dislike or hate toward the Armenians is
much more honest than an attitude which ignores the fact that Armenians
are some of the oldest native peoples of this land; which denies their
existence and which tries to pass over the events of 1915 and to erase
their traces. It can easily be said that the majority of Turkish
people are acquainted with, love and even miss the great Armenian
culture formed in this soil, as well as the people of this culture.
Let's leave aside France, the Diaspora and Erivan; and first take a
look at ourselves. We seem to be trying to find answers to reject the
claims, with the haste of a guilty child. We do not have a proud and
mature stance on this issue. Instead of conducting research and studies
into this matter, we prefer a method based on sheer propaganda. We
compete with the militants of the Diaspora by publishing striking
photographs of corpses.
The undeniable reality is the fact that a great and widespread anguish
was suffered 86 years ago, extending to the present day. This is a
reality that has to be faced and has to be reckoned with.
Otherwise, we will face two alternatives: 1.Those that do not live
on this land will continue to take decisions which will affect our
lives, on our behalf 2. The risk of repetition of such incidents
will increase.
Instead of solutions forced on us by foreigners-such as accepting
the term "genocide", of making apologies etc.-we need to find clear
explanations based on our own research and our own archives. Most
important of all, with a stance similar to our brotherly attitude to
Armenians living in Turkey, we should also embrace Armenians who are
now in the Diaspora, but still feel bound to this soil; and share
with them the common values of being the people of the same soil.
What is the Diaspora afraid of?
Since we have already embraced the West with whom we once fought for
life or death, then why shouldn't we embrace the people with whom we
have lived together for centuries? This can only be made possible by
conducting research instead of meaningless cries of protest, and by
shedding light on the past instead of trying to erase it. Let's keep
in mind that such an attitude will help the Armenians, but also will
help us to gain peace of mind; and it will support the continuity of
conscience and geography.
Some might say, "You are talking of brotherhood, but the other
party is trying to trap you." It is true that there are militant
circles both in Erivan and in various Western towns, who consider the
painful incidents of 1915 as the foundation of the Armenian national
consciousness. They think that this is the only adhesive to unite
the Armenian nation which is scattered across many countries in the
world. Their efforts to revive a past enmity and hatred and to hand
it down to future generations are accompanied by a Western policy
of manipulation to enforce various liabilities upon Turkey. Still,
they are very afraid. But of what? Of losing their only tool: namely
the card of 1915. They fear that this issue might cease to be a taboo
in Turkey, and that people might embrace each other. As a consequence
of Turkey's mistakes, this approach-which, despite a nationalistic
disguise, actually belittles the nation and its past and is the
expression of the fear of being assimilated by the West-has become
popular instead of remaining marginal.
Provocations As we all remember, ASALA, the team who raised peoples'
consciousness on this agenda through the use of terror in the
70's, later reverted to the widely known method of "political
struggle". History repeats itself only for those who cannot learn
from it. Let us now turn to the beginning of events and hear what
historian Stephanos Yerasimos, who is interested in the situation of
the "political struggle" in 1892, has to say: "The first example
that all these groups (Hinchak-Tashnak) followed, both from a
political perspective as well as a strategic one, was the Bulgarian
one. Bulgarians formed 45 percent of the provincial population, but
had managed with the moral and actual support of Europe, to kill or
else expel the Turkish-Muslim majority, and to found a nation. This
operation would have never succeeded if the Russians had not been
involved, and if Europe had not chosen to be neutral on the subject of
massacre stories out of a sense of sensitivity to public opinion. Since
they succeeded, it was time to replay the same game. Civilian Armenians
and even the rebellious gangs did not have enough strength to resist
the Muslim majority and the Turkish army. Therefore, the main function
of the Armenian gangs was to organize operations that would provoke
an Armenian massacre, thus provoking the sympathy of European public
opinion and forcing the great countries to intervene in favour of
Armenian independency.
According to a Hinchak member, "The gangs looked for opportunities
to kill Turks and Kurds, to burn their villages and withdraw to the
mountains. Then the angry Turks would attack civilian Armenians
who were too weak to protect themselves, and would kill them in
such a barbaric way that Russia would feel obliged to interfere,
aiming to occupy the Armenian soil in the name of human and Christian
civilisation. This "revolutionary strategy" based all its calculations
on the assumption that the so-called public opinion would not be
bothered when Muslims were killed, but would be affected by the
brutality of the Muslim Turkish people against Armenians.
However, it failed to notice that the concept of human and Christian
civilisation was dependent on a very sacred international balance,
and that this balance had greatly changed within the 15 years following
the Bulgarian revolt."
This is a rather long, but comprehensive quotation. It is obvious
that the Armenian gangs implemented the same plan 23 years later and
then within the circumstances of hot war.
Doubtlessly, the provocation of those gangs cannot be considered the
only explanation and they cannot be held solely responsible for the
massacre. Within the framework of the agitation/retaliation policy
that prevailed between 1892-1915, the Ottoman Administration, some
of the Turkish and Armenian peoples, and some Kurdish tribes were
also greatly responsible of the consequences.
Yerasimos says: "As for the Kurds, this was a ready opportunity to
seize the areas which they longed for. And as for the Muslim Turkish
peasants, this was a probable opportunity to free themselves from
their debts owed to Armenians who were considered as born-usurers."
Armenians wanted to be free from the liability of paying taxes to the
government on one hand, and paying protection money to the Kurdish
tribes on the other.
First turmoils Approaching the exploding point of 1915, the ethnical
diversities in Anatolia were greatly agitated; the people were
increasingly restless and the number of deaths in various revolts
had reached thousands.
The seeds of enmity which were sown in those days were expressed in
many verses:
"Hic xiretek nemawa sed car qasem be Quran Peydabe Ermenistan, name yek
le Kurdan" (Hundred times I swear on the Koran that we have no force
to resist, When Armenia becomes a state not a single Kurd will exist)
(Hadji Kadir Koyi, Kurdish poet)
Bath-keepers, jewellers, tailors, Armenians are the worst scoundrels.
Horses are tired of carrying their carcasses, Did you make rulers of
yourselves, Armenians?
Did you make asses of yourselves, Armenians?
(Anonymous poem recited by Abbas Gul of Handere, Sarýkamýþ)
The first tumult started with Armenians' killing of the Muslims in
Kayseri, Amasya and Merzifon; and they were immediately followed
by retaliations. At first, the Government took strict measures,
arresting nearly 2000 Armenians, 17 of whom were sentenced to death.
Fearing of Britain's threats, Abdulhamid II pardoned them. One year
later, in 1894, a rebellion began up in Yozgat. It was followed by
village burnings in Bitlis and Diyarbakýr. The Sultan had lost control,
and the initiative was in the hands of the gangs.
The European press was full of news regarding the Armenian massacre;
Britain, France and Russia shrieked for intervention. But the
conditions for actual intervention were not yet ripe. Each of those
three nations were for the status quo unless a clear geographical
area was delineated that would come under their own influence, and
each wanted to prevent the others from interfering with its region of
impact. Thoughts of dividing the Ottoman Empire and taking shares of
it first started to mature in those years. The events that occurred in
Istanbul in 1895 were followed by others in Trabzon, Sivas, Malatya,
Diyarbakir, Erzurum and Van.
In the same year, the Armenian revolt started under the lead of the
Hinchak Party in Zeytun (now Suleymanlý, Kahramanmaraþ), and spread
over the whole region, resulting in the death of hundreds of Muslims.
The rebels were besieged in Zeytun. With tensions rapidly rising, the
European nations forced the Ottomans to stop the siege, to announce
general amnesty for the rebels, and to allow the rebel leader to
emigrate abroad.
The number of dead reached nearly 40,000 in three years. Overall,
it is an indisputable fact that Armenians suffered more casualties.
A period of partial relent began that lasted until 1908. The raid
on the Ottoman Bank in Galata, Istanbul in 1896 was a blow to the
Western sympathy for the Armenian nationalists because this time they
had directly targeted the capital. The rebels attempted another act
of rebellion in Bitlis-Sason in 1904. And they were involved in the
assassination attempt on Abdulhamid at the Yýldýz Palace in 1905.
During the process that lead up to the declaration of a Constitutional
Monarchy in 1908, the Armenian organisations cooperated with
the Ýttihat Terakki (Committee for Union and Progress) against
Abdulhamid. The Ýttihat members felt uncomfortable with the Patriarchy
in Istanbul and with the clergy/rich class mainly represented by the
Patriarchy and their privileged commercial and social status. While the
Patriarchy favoured an Armenian formation within the Ottoman structure
preserving their privileges, the Tashnak Revolutionary Federation
(Hai Heghapokhakan Dashnaksutiun) supported by the Anatolian Armenians
was after regional, even full independence.
The events of in 1909 largely magnified the Armenian problem. The
incidents, which started in Adana on 13 April, were organised almost
as an extension of the provocations, which terrorised Istanbul on
the same day. The reactionary and fundamentalist rebellion known as
the `31 March Event' shocked Adana as well. The provocative rumours
and lies that deeply hurt the feelings of the Muslims spread like an
avalanche. Although few Armenians had participated in the rebellion,
the angry people attacked and ruined the Armenian districts.
According to the official Ottoman archives, 6,000 Armenians were
killed. It is said that the actual number is at least two or three
times that. 1500 Muslims also lost their lives.
After the Movement Army came from Thessalonica to Istanbul and
restored order, the tumult seemed to cease. The government tried to
deliver messages of brotherhood and harmony to the whole country;
and even decided to provide financial support to the victims of
the Adana events. Armenian deputies also took part in the committee
formed to investigate the developments. The Court Martial sentenced
some people to death and they were executed. Among them were leading
Turkish notables and Armenians who were not proven guilty.
The cooperation between Ýttihat ve Terakki and the Tashnak Committee
lasted until 1914. The Ýttihat Committee members who seized power
during the Bab-Ý Ali (Sublime Porte) raid in July 1912 were in favour
of administrative and social reforms in the eastern provinces, even of
granting autonomy to the Armenians. These reforms and improvements were
hindered by the breaking out of the Balkan War and by the obstruction
of the traditional feudal and tribal system. The government even had
to distribute arms to Armenians to obtain their help in suppressing
the Kurdish rebellion in Bitlis, in March 1914.
The sincerity of Ýttihat ve Terakki's efforts to solve the Armenian
problem after 1908 is rather disputable. The steps taken to protect and
support Armenians, particularly in the east, were partly accomplished
by the decisiveness of the state, and partly due both to the fear of
losing foreign support and to foreign pressure.
The real breaking point for the Ottoman government was the shrinking
of the Empire, which started with the Balkan defeat. Meanwhile,
the rapidly spreading Pan-Islamic and Pan-Turanist trends gradually
became the official policy of the Ýttihat ve Terakki government. This
reactionary nationalism inevitably required the re-delineation of
the geography, and the removal of internal traitors as well as the
local vehicles of treachery of foreign origin. Contrary to the `pan'
trends in Europe and Russia, our local ideology was not expansionist,
but was oriented to the removal of internal elements. Putting aside
the very weak Caucasian and Iranian strategies developed by Enver
Pasha under German pressure (which really cannot be considered),
the Pan-Turanian utopia known as the `Red Apple' was, in fact, only
a piece of romantic propaganda.
However, the top management of Ýttihat ve Terakki had no set beliefs on
this subject. The government plans to establish the Turkish culture,
language, and national economic structures in Anatolia were not put
in force until early 1914.
On the other hand, the war that started in Europe the same year
destroyed all insecure balances, and triggered the events, which led
to great human tragedies.
It is a fact that the Armenian gangs accumulated guns in large numbers
and that even some of the civilian Armenians were armed just before
the war. This arming had two aspects: one was offensive and part of
preparations for a rebellion, and the other was defensive and was
meant to help the families to protect themselves. The first serious
alarm for the Ottoman government was the congress held in Erzurum
by the Armenian militia in the summer of 1914. The unification of
delegates from all over the country under the Tashnak leadership was
an omen of a nearing and expansive revolt.
The military reports from the Erzurum and Koprukoy vicinity soon
after the congress confirmed the organic relations between Russians
and Armenians, and stated that a large number of Armenians equipped
with guns, bombs, maps, and carrying a considerable amount of money
were penetrating the vicinities of Muþ, Bitlis and Van. Other
intelligence reports indicated that Armenian regiments were formed
in the Russian army consisting of people who were well acquainted
with Eastern Anatolia and its topography.
Russia's declaration of war in early November made everything worse.
In the following months, terrorist activities were accomplished against
the Turkish authorities in many towns. For the Turks, the year 1915
started with the SarÝkamÝþ tragedy. The 3rd Army, which had
lost its power largely after this blow, still tried to maintain its
hold on a rather long front line. Thankfully, the Russians were also
too exhausted to attack; and both parties began to plan the spring
operations.
In February 1915, the government decided to remove the soldiers
of Armenian origin from the commanding level of military units and
from the staff of the Headquarters. This Regulation No. 8682 which
was encoded and sent to all commands on 25 February, pointed out the
Armenians revolts in Bitlis, Aleppo, Dortyol, Kayseri and stated that
there was French and Russian support behind the developments.
The critical moment approaches This was also a critical situation
from a military perspective.
Sivas, Erzincan, Erzurum on the northern, and Van, Bitlis, Diyarbakýr
on the southern operational fields of the 3rd Army had large
potential for Armenian revolt. In case these roads were blocked,
the connection with the rear of the front would be impossible, and
that would inevitably mean the complete destruction of the army.
Similarly, the railway, which then reached only as far as
Niðde-Ulukýþla, was the sole means of connection with the west for the
3rd Army. (Since the Russian fleet controlled the Black Sea, it was
very risky to transfer soldiers and ammunition to the Trabzon port by
sea). All provision and ammunition needs were met via this railway,
and, afterward, by carrying them on foot and carts for nearly 700-750
kilometres. If the Armenian activities in Konya and Adana would turn
into revolts, the security of the last stop of this railway would
be threatened, consequently destroying the Caucasian Army. The same
threats existed for the 4th Army on the Syrian front and the 6th Army
on the Mesopotamian front.
The Armenian revolts in Anatolia matured in this climate of war. It
became evident that the worst would happen between Armenians and
Turks. Many Armenian and Western historians claim that the unacceptable
actions such as brutality, denigration, rape and murder suffered by
the Armenians during that period forced them to revolt and to take up
arms in order to protect themselves. It is a fact that Armenians were
agitated and provoked both by the Armenian gangs and by Russia, France
and Britain on one hand; but, on the other hand, it is also a fact
that those people suffered great tyranny especially during February,
March and April in 1915. Even though the various accounts published
in the West relating the stories of the days before and during
deportation may in many cases be overly emotional and exaggerated,
one cannot believe that so many impartial observers were telling lies.
But, when we look at the chronology of the events, we see that the
revolts preceded the decision to deport. The first big revolt broke
out in Van and ended with the seizure of the town by Armenians.
During the revolt, which had started on 14 April, nearly 10,000
Turks and Kurds were killed in Van and its vicinity. Thousands fled
southward. The Armenian forces strengthened their power with the
arrival of the Russian army and sparked off new revolts in Bayburt,
Erzurum, Tortum and DiyarbakÝr. There was no way back. The Turkish
forces had a very brief hold on Van during which most civilians who
could not escape were killed.
Mutual brutalities against civilians on the part of both parties
dragged the whole region into a state of full-blown war. During the
First World War, no similar circumstances of full-blown war were
experienced on any continent, on any war front or on any rear front.
The notorious deportation decision was taken on 24th April. All
Armenians between the ages of 16-55 were to immigrate to an area
at least 25 kilometres away from the Baghdad railway in present
day Syria. The compulsory migration started in late May under the
control of civil officials and the local gendarmes who reported to
the Ministry of Interior.
The official orders issued by the government are full of detailed
measures and warnings to protect the lives and property of Armenians.
In actual fact, they were invitations to death. At that time,
approximately 1.5 million Armenians lived on Ottoman soil. Even though
nothing would happen to those hundreds of thousands on their long
road of migration, it was natural that many would die of sickness and
hunger. To accomplish a human transfer of such great size was beyond
the logistical capabilities of the Ottomans of the day. Bear in mind
that although the reinforcement troops who were transferred by train
from Istanbul to UlukÝþla and then went on foot to join the
army in the Caucasian Front were selected from young and strong men,
one in four soldiers was lost on the way because of insufficient food,
health measures and equipment.
In addition, there was no coordination or cooperation among the
Ministry of Interior, the military and the local administrations.
This situation left the migrating Armenians at the mercy of the local
administrators. The majority of Armenian adult men were killed either
before the migration started or en route just after the start. In
some towns, the governors did not allow shopping before the journey,
even for basic needs, with the intention of forcing Armenians to keep
their money on them.
The security of the immigrants was left to the responsibility of a
few gendarmes. Some of the officials sent by the ministry of Interior
were personally involved in people being seized and murdered.
Especially during the immigration in the east, many Armenians without
means of defending themselves were robbed and killed by the Kurdish
gangs. Many local gendarmes and fugitives of war (A.W.O.L.) stripped
Armenians off their property and lives. Thousands of Armenian women
were raped and kidnapped. The majority of those who were left alive
died soon after of hunger and sickness.
The immigrant convoys first stopped at provisional camps, and, after
a long journey, they were sent to the common camp areas in Der-Zor
and Basra. Hunger bordered on starvation. It was impossible to find
bread in the villages and towns on their way, since famine prevailed
in those places and the war conditions had worsened everything. There
were no tents in most of the camping sites. People slept in the open
air by either wrapping themselves in rags or coiling around each other.
The number of deported Armenians stood at around 1 million. Leaving
aside the underestimated and overestimated numbers, we can say that
the number of Armenians who died or were killed during the deportation
was around 500,000. In other words, one out of every two Armenians
had lost their lives.
During the period of armistice, the Ottoman government started
interrogating the 1397 officials who were actively or administratively
responsible for the Armenian massacre. 40 of them were sentenced to
death and others received major punishments. Many Ottoman statesmen,
high ranked officers, journalists and intellectuals who were handed
over to the British to be exiled in Malta were later released because
no there was no concrete evidence against them.
Could this be called a systematic annihilation?
Bearing in mind the background of the developments and the state of
war, it is difficult to say that the deportation decision was wrong
from a military angle. Armies blocked by revolts at their rear cannot
continue to fight. It is also true that a nation where nearly the
entire population of adult men and even young boys are driven to the
war fronts cannot defend its hometowns. The number of Muslims who
died, were killed or driven out of their homes and hometowns during
the decade of war between 1912-1922 was around 4 million. The loss
of both land and of people was huge. As for civilian losses, the
First World War dealt its worst blow to the people on this land. The
massacres by Armenians, called the `Armenian atrocities' in Turkey,
and especially the mass murders in the last year of the war by the
Armenian gangs who were withdrawing together with the Russian army,
added to the tragedy.
It is doubtless that all of these killings by Armenians cannot justify
the 1915 massacre of Armenians and old scores cannot be settled by
calculating the number of dead.
If we approach the issue from a human perspective, it is rather
difficult to say that the decision and the practice of deportation was
correct. The most important factor may be whether it was necessary
to implement deportation in places that did not have military or
strategic importance of the first magnitude. Just to take pre-emptive
measures, many Armenians living in Western or Central Anatolia were
also compelled to immigrate, notwithstanding their distance to the
regions and influence over the Armenian revolts.
However, in Western Anatolia, in the Aegean and Marmara regions
deportation was negligible and there was no deportation practice in
Izmir and Kutahya.
We cannot technically claim that the Ottoman government carried out
a systematic ethnic genocide. The government had barely any strategy
or equipment to do so and was not in a position to accomplish any
systematic and planned action. On the contrary, Ýttihat ve Terakki's
approach was to consider the deportation only as a `military operation'
because they had not developed a consistent policy for the Armenian
issue and had lost all control of the incidents.
Great losses When you take this approach, your feeling of humanity
and the responsibilities of your conscience lessen, if not completely
vanish.
Enver, Talat and Cemal Pashas took shelter behind this approach and
closed their ears to the cries of those with no means of refuge.
Nevertheless, there were truly conscientious government officials and
Turkish people in many places who had not lost their humane feelings
during the deportation practice. Many Armenians, especially women and
children, were hidden and protected by Turks, Kurds and Circassians.
At the end of the First World War, Turkey lost both the war and her
people. We have to include Armenians among those people. They were
the people of this land. They were our people. When they went away,
a large part of the rich culture also left our soil. Their absence
did not enrich, but impoverished us. Many artists, artisans, master
craftsmen were lost together with their traditions and knowledge.
And, instead of preserving the remaining traces, we preferred to erase
them. It was true that there were many Armenians in the Diaspora who
tried to erase us as well. So we have come to the present situation
where we mutually try to erase each other.
We have tried to erase the days of happy co-existence from our
memory. We have tried to forget that we used to offer each other
sweets on Muslim holidays and leavened bread on Easter.
We tried to forget that Armenians assigned 24-hour guards at the
distribution reservoir in Van, saying `The Muslims perform ablutions
with this water, therefore nothing dirty should be thrown in it'.
Pretending not see that this soil is a mosaic of millennia and
saying that we were our only friends, we were left alone. We could
not see that we would lose our own values when there were no `others'
around us, when there were no `different' traditions and conventions
in our lives. When we started to scrape off the eyes of the icons in
the Armenian churches, we could not realise that it would inevitably
lead us to the point of stealing the tombstones of our forefathers and
selling them to Westerners. When we bulldozed the Armenian cemeteries
in Van to find hidden treasures, we took one step closer to erecting
five-star hotels in the gardens of our national palaces in Istanbul.
Because we considered divergence not as a treasure but as a threat,
we gradually become glutted with our uniqueness. Looking only at each
other day after day, we lost our original colours and became dull.
"Armenian seed!"
We tried to wear each other down with cheap slanders, or rather to
use propaganda to win over the Western Big Brothers and European
public opinion. We did not seriously and scientifically research how
and what happened in 1915 and its consequences. A middle age man in
Amik village 50 kilometers to Van asked us why we had come. When we
said that we had learned the Armenian gangs had murdered the peasants
of this village in 1915; he said: `Did you only just learn this? Did
you only realise this after the French declaration?' Although a bit
confused, I calmly answered, `Yes, the Turks understand after the
fact.' Now it was his turn to be confused; and he said, `This was a
phrase used by Armenians in the past.' I said: `It may be so, but it
seems to be true.' Another taboo relates to the Armenians who have
survived. It is evident that most of them have been assimilated into
the Turkish society by changing their names and their religion. Even
if these people known as "Converts" don't forget their roots and their
own past, the majority of their children and grandchildren have been
and are still unaware of the truth. This group, which is larger than
assumed, was the result of marrying off Armenian girls who were hidden
and reared by Turks to Turkish and Kurdish men when they grew up.
Sharing the pains After they reached a certain age, the converted
Armenian men may have moved away for business, but the women mostly
stayed where they grew up; therefore it is easier to trace them. It
becomes clear that the unfortunate phrase "Armenian seed" is used
for the children of those women. The anger and reaction felt against
Armenians have led those who knew that they had convert family
members to conceal and even forget this fact. Although it is not
openly mentioned, there are "Armenian seeds" in many renowned Turkish
families occupying important posts. Treating this reality not as a
source of pride, but as a shame, has caused people to hide the truth,
fearful of being ousted by society, even when they themselves believe
that it was not a shame.
The long dead or still living grandmothers with Turkish names,
who from time to time get angry like an `Obstinate Armenian', who
never talk of the past but carry the traces of pain on their faces,
who are consulted for advice on critical matters, who often talk in
adages reflecting past experiences, are more than just an image for
many Turkish families.
The fact that we have assimilated tens of thousands Armenian converts
may seem awful to some. We can say that the taboo on the Armenian
issue in Turkey is concerned not only with those who died in 1915,
but also with those who have survived and lived like Turks.
When the creek reaches its spring We lived together with Armenians
in peace, mutual friendship and respect for nearly 1000 years
until 1915. We shared many things. This is something we should not
underestimate. We can now share the past sorrows. Without including
anyone else, without allowing anyone else to interfere. Can we say that
there is not a single Armenian among those in the Diaspora who suffers
homesickness, who longs to embrace the people here? Can you believe
that the Diaspora Armenians, who have lived in Western countries for
three generations and 90 percent of whose grandfathers and grandmothers
were born in Turkey, are only after reparations or soil?
Hrant Dink, the Editor in Chief of the Agos newspaper tells: "Nearly
20 years ago, a lady who was born in Sivas and had settled in France
after the deportation, came to visit the places where she was born and
grew up. She got so excited that she died of a heart attack. The Sivas
peasants told her daughter who came to take her body back to France
that they wanted to bury her in the village cemetery. The daughter
hesitated at first; but agreed with them and buried her mother there
when an elderly peasant woman said: "Let her mother stay here. The
creek has reached its spring."
We can still reach the spring of 1915.
June-2001 / Special Issue
--Boundary_(ID_0QWBQ+n3EqN43IzdJsPX6A)--
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Atlas, Turkey
http://www.kesfetmekicinbak.com/kultur/tarih/0069 1/
Oct 11 2007
Anatolia, surrounded by war, had lost its peace and order as a result
of the Armenian revolts, which broke out one after the other, and by
famine and epidemics.
The gangs struck, these attacks were retaliated, and blood was
shed everywhere. Under these circumstances, compulsory immigration
was decreed, resulting in the death of hundreds of thousand civil
Armenians, including women, men and children.Under these circumstances,
compulsory immigration was decreed, resulting in the death of hundreds
of thousand civil Armenians, including women, men and children. Perhaps
an introductory sentence that does not use the great pains and the
tragic events of the past as a political vehicle can be proposed:
They were also natives of this land!
Written by GURSEL GONCU
The tragedy of hundreds of thousands
The pains that were suffered 86 years ago carried us to Van, the
probable starting point of the events. We were greeted first by the
poet Refik Durbaþ' verses in the sunniest city of Turkey:
"The sky, the sky alone is blue:
The rest is a stopped sundial."
If you were not interested in the painful side of realities, you
might very easily feel yourself in a dreamland when you come to Van.
Its geographical situation is so magnificent that it can move atheists
to review their beliefs and simply overwhelm the faithful.
After a decade of trouble, the people seem to have pulled themselves
together. They believe that the surrounding natural beauty will bring
much better days in the future. Although they have lived through
years of distress, they can approach the issues with optimism and
a sense of humour. They say: `It is true that livestock raising has
almost stopped due to the terror and prohibitions; we could not move
to the hamlets to take care of our herds; bee keeping has lost its
vitality; the economy has come to a standstill; we have lost money;
but nature has had an opportunity to revive itself and the fruits are
now sweeter than ever, wildlife and game animals abound more than ever:
to tell the truth, these are Van's best days..."
We come to the main issue and ask: "How were the times of
co-existence with Armenians?" A shadow of worry and sadness passes
over their faces..." Everything was different then. "Everything was
perfect. People here lived in an atmosphere of great friendliness
and affection until the First World War."
Almost everyone whom we talked to in Van speaks of the Armenians
with sympathy. Despite the anguish suffered by their fathers and
grandfathers, the main part of the common memory consists of kind
and good things.
Another point on which everyone agrees is this: If all those painful
events had not happened; if we could have lived peacefully together
with Armenians as before, and if they had not gone away, Van would
have become the Paris of the East...
So what happened? Why did people who had for centuries lived together
in a physical, geographical and moral proximity become enemies?
Hundreds of thousand people on both sides were destroyed by the
killings, massacre and deportation.
But why?
Looking down from the Van Fortress onto the old town, which was
razed to the ground during the events of 1915 and now lies in ruins,
we start a journey in time. But the clicks of the camera will always
keep our eyes on today.
Politics: from today to yesterday J.F.Kennedy said: "A problem becomes
a problem only when you start to take interest in it." Actually,
the "Armenian Problem' (as it is called in related literature),
is not a new one; it first began to appear in the last quarter of
the 19th century. However, we only realised that we were facing a
serious problem after the French Parliament passed the Draft Act on
the Armenian Genocide. After this unfortunate event, the widespread
official view that, to this day, claimed to "leave this issue to
history" was transformed into "leaving this issue to historians". The
Armenian problem, which formerly was of no interest to anyone in
Turkey except for a few scholars and historians, has now become the
top issue on the agenda of both the media and the men in the street.
After meaningless and childish reactions such as saying "France should
first consider Algiers; no, the truth is that Armenians killed Turks;
let's sell our Renault; let's not buy Peugeot; let's not use the
word cinema; let's not inhale oxygen", we are finally approaching a
more serious and logical point. Every sensible person can clearly
see that this decision taken by Paris is part of daily political
machinations and of various economic/strategic plans targeting the
Caucasus. Trying to gain political advantage by using deaths has
always been a part of traditional politics in many Western countries,
including France. Nevertheless, this decision had a positive aspect:
it opened the way for the discussion of the events of 1915. Is this
a positive development? Of course it is. The Armenian problem-passed
over for years with empty comments and finally turned into a taboo
subject by our guilt complex and fear of separatism-unfortunately
created an "Armenian Problem" in the minds of the Westerners. Many of
our researchers and historians preferred to sidestep the issue. We
gave the impression that we were trying to cover up some events,
to hush up something. Consequently, only one in ten of the 20,000
books and articles written on this issue are of Turkish origin;
and only 3 to 5 of them have been published in the West.
The competition for photographs of corpses It is an indisputable fact
that the issue has a very important political significance. It has
always had this significance, and it will continue to have it. But
it is also a fact that the majority of the Turkish people do not take
a political view on this issue.
Expressing a deeply xenophobic dislike or hate toward the Armenians is
much more honest than an attitude which ignores the fact that Armenians
are some of the oldest native peoples of this land; which denies their
existence and which tries to pass over the events of 1915 and to erase
their traces. It can easily be said that the majority of Turkish
people are acquainted with, love and even miss the great Armenian
culture formed in this soil, as well as the people of this culture.
Let's leave aside France, the Diaspora and Erivan; and first take a
look at ourselves. We seem to be trying to find answers to reject the
claims, with the haste of a guilty child. We do not have a proud and
mature stance on this issue. Instead of conducting research and studies
into this matter, we prefer a method based on sheer propaganda. We
compete with the militants of the Diaspora by publishing striking
photographs of corpses.
The undeniable reality is the fact that a great and widespread anguish
was suffered 86 years ago, extending to the present day. This is a
reality that has to be faced and has to be reckoned with.
Otherwise, we will face two alternatives: 1.Those that do not live
on this land will continue to take decisions which will affect our
lives, on our behalf 2. The risk of repetition of such incidents
will increase.
Instead of solutions forced on us by foreigners-such as accepting
the term "genocide", of making apologies etc.-we need to find clear
explanations based on our own research and our own archives. Most
important of all, with a stance similar to our brotherly attitude to
Armenians living in Turkey, we should also embrace Armenians who are
now in the Diaspora, but still feel bound to this soil; and share
with them the common values of being the people of the same soil.
What is the Diaspora afraid of?
Since we have already embraced the West with whom we once fought for
life or death, then why shouldn't we embrace the people with whom we
have lived together for centuries? This can only be made possible by
conducting research instead of meaningless cries of protest, and by
shedding light on the past instead of trying to erase it. Let's keep
in mind that such an attitude will help the Armenians, but also will
help us to gain peace of mind; and it will support the continuity of
conscience and geography.
Some might say, "You are talking of brotherhood, but the other
party is trying to trap you." It is true that there are militant
circles both in Erivan and in various Western towns, who consider the
painful incidents of 1915 as the foundation of the Armenian national
consciousness. They think that this is the only adhesive to unite
the Armenian nation which is scattered across many countries in the
world. Their efforts to revive a past enmity and hatred and to hand
it down to future generations are accompanied by a Western policy
of manipulation to enforce various liabilities upon Turkey. Still,
they are very afraid. But of what? Of losing their only tool: namely
the card of 1915. They fear that this issue might cease to be a taboo
in Turkey, and that people might embrace each other. As a consequence
of Turkey's mistakes, this approach-which, despite a nationalistic
disguise, actually belittles the nation and its past and is the
expression of the fear of being assimilated by the West-has become
popular instead of remaining marginal.
Provocations As we all remember, ASALA, the team who raised peoples'
consciousness on this agenda through the use of terror in the
70's, later reverted to the widely known method of "political
struggle". History repeats itself only for those who cannot learn
from it. Let us now turn to the beginning of events and hear what
historian Stephanos Yerasimos, who is interested in the situation of
the "political struggle" in 1892, has to say: "The first example
that all these groups (Hinchak-Tashnak) followed, both from a
political perspective as well as a strategic one, was the Bulgarian
one. Bulgarians formed 45 percent of the provincial population, but
had managed with the moral and actual support of Europe, to kill or
else expel the Turkish-Muslim majority, and to found a nation. This
operation would have never succeeded if the Russians had not been
involved, and if Europe had not chosen to be neutral on the subject of
massacre stories out of a sense of sensitivity to public opinion. Since
they succeeded, it was time to replay the same game. Civilian Armenians
and even the rebellious gangs did not have enough strength to resist
the Muslim majority and the Turkish army. Therefore, the main function
of the Armenian gangs was to organize operations that would provoke
an Armenian massacre, thus provoking the sympathy of European public
opinion and forcing the great countries to intervene in favour of
Armenian independency.
According to a Hinchak member, "The gangs looked for opportunities
to kill Turks and Kurds, to burn their villages and withdraw to the
mountains. Then the angry Turks would attack civilian Armenians
who were too weak to protect themselves, and would kill them in
such a barbaric way that Russia would feel obliged to interfere,
aiming to occupy the Armenian soil in the name of human and Christian
civilisation. This "revolutionary strategy" based all its calculations
on the assumption that the so-called public opinion would not be
bothered when Muslims were killed, but would be affected by the
brutality of the Muslim Turkish people against Armenians.
However, it failed to notice that the concept of human and Christian
civilisation was dependent on a very sacred international balance,
and that this balance had greatly changed within the 15 years following
the Bulgarian revolt."
This is a rather long, but comprehensive quotation. It is obvious
that the Armenian gangs implemented the same plan 23 years later and
then within the circumstances of hot war.
Doubtlessly, the provocation of those gangs cannot be considered the
only explanation and they cannot be held solely responsible for the
massacre. Within the framework of the agitation/retaliation policy
that prevailed between 1892-1915, the Ottoman Administration, some
of the Turkish and Armenian peoples, and some Kurdish tribes were
also greatly responsible of the consequences.
Yerasimos says: "As for the Kurds, this was a ready opportunity to
seize the areas which they longed for. And as for the Muslim Turkish
peasants, this was a probable opportunity to free themselves from
their debts owed to Armenians who were considered as born-usurers."
Armenians wanted to be free from the liability of paying taxes to the
government on one hand, and paying protection money to the Kurdish
tribes on the other.
First turmoils Approaching the exploding point of 1915, the ethnical
diversities in Anatolia were greatly agitated; the people were
increasingly restless and the number of deaths in various revolts
had reached thousands.
The seeds of enmity which were sown in those days were expressed in
many verses:
"Hic xiretek nemawa sed car qasem be Quran Peydabe Ermenistan, name yek
le Kurdan" (Hundred times I swear on the Koran that we have no force
to resist, When Armenia becomes a state not a single Kurd will exist)
(Hadji Kadir Koyi, Kurdish poet)
Bath-keepers, jewellers, tailors, Armenians are the worst scoundrels.
Horses are tired of carrying their carcasses, Did you make rulers of
yourselves, Armenians?
Did you make asses of yourselves, Armenians?
(Anonymous poem recited by Abbas Gul of Handere, Sarýkamýþ)
The first tumult started with Armenians' killing of the Muslims in
Kayseri, Amasya and Merzifon; and they were immediately followed
by retaliations. At first, the Government took strict measures,
arresting nearly 2000 Armenians, 17 of whom were sentenced to death.
Fearing of Britain's threats, Abdulhamid II pardoned them. One year
later, in 1894, a rebellion began up in Yozgat. It was followed by
village burnings in Bitlis and Diyarbakýr. The Sultan had lost control,
and the initiative was in the hands of the gangs.
The European press was full of news regarding the Armenian massacre;
Britain, France and Russia shrieked for intervention. But the
conditions for actual intervention were not yet ripe. Each of those
three nations were for the status quo unless a clear geographical
area was delineated that would come under their own influence, and
each wanted to prevent the others from interfering with its region of
impact. Thoughts of dividing the Ottoman Empire and taking shares of
it first started to mature in those years. The events that occurred in
Istanbul in 1895 were followed by others in Trabzon, Sivas, Malatya,
Diyarbakir, Erzurum and Van.
In the same year, the Armenian revolt started under the lead of the
Hinchak Party in Zeytun (now Suleymanlý, Kahramanmaraþ), and spread
over the whole region, resulting in the death of hundreds of Muslims.
The rebels were besieged in Zeytun. With tensions rapidly rising, the
European nations forced the Ottomans to stop the siege, to announce
general amnesty for the rebels, and to allow the rebel leader to
emigrate abroad.
The number of dead reached nearly 40,000 in three years. Overall,
it is an indisputable fact that Armenians suffered more casualties.
A period of partial relent began that lasted until 1908. The raid
on the Ottoman Bank in Galata, Istanbul in 1896 was a blow to the
Western sympathy for the Armenian nationalists because this time they
had directly targeted the capital. The rebels attempted another act
of rebellion in Bitlis-Sason in 1904. And they were involved in the
assassination attempt on Abdulhamid at the Yýldýz Palace in 1905.
During the process that lead up to the declaration of a Constitutional
Monarchy in 1908, the Armenian organisations cooperated with
the Ýttihat Terakki (Committee for Union and Progress) against
Abdulhamid. The Ýttihat members felt uncomfortable with the Patriarchy
in Istanbul and with the clergy/rich class mainly represented by the
Patriarchy and their privileged commercial and social status. While the
Patriarchy favoured an Armenian formation within the Ottoman structure
preserving their privileges, the Tashnak Revolutionary Federation
(Hai Heghapokhakan Dashnaksutiun) supported by the Anatolian Armenians
was after regional, even full independence.
The events of in 1909 largely magnified the Armenian problem. The
incidents, which started in Adana on 13 April, were organised almost
as an extension of the provocations, which terrorised Istanbul on
the same day. The reactionary and fundamentalist rebellion known as
the `31 March Event' shocked Adana as well. The provocative rumours
and lies that deeply hurt the feelings of the Muslims spread like an
avalanche. Although few Armenians had participated in the rebellion,
the angry people attacked and ruined the Armenian districts.
According to the official Ottoman archives, 6,000 Armenians were
killed. It is said that the actual number is at least two or three
times that. 1500 Muslims also lost their lives.
After the Movement Army came from Thessalonica to Istanbul and
restored order, the tumult seemed to cease. The government tried to
deliver messages of brotherhood and harmony to the whole country;
and even decided to provide financial support to the victims of
the Adana events. Armenian deputies also took part in the committee
formed to investigate the developments. The Court Martial sentenced
some people to death and they were executed. Among them were leading
Turkish notables and Armenians who were not proven guilty.
The cooperation between Ýttihat ve Terakki and the Tashnak Committee
lasted until 1914. The Ýttihat Committee members who seized power
during the Bab-Ý Ali (Sublime Porte) raid in July 1912 were in favour
of administrative and social reforms in the eastern provinces, even of
granting autonomy to the Armenians. These reforms and improvements were
hindered by the breaking out of the Balkan War and by the obstruction
of the traditional feudal and tribal system. The government even had
to distribute arms to Armenians to obtain their help in suppressing
the Kurdish rebellion in Bitlis, in March 1914.
The sincerity of Ýttihat ve Terakki's efforts to solve the Armenian
problem after 1908 is rather disputable. The steps taken to protect and
support Armenians, particularly in the east, were partly accomplished
by the decisiveness of the state, and partly due both to the fear of
losing foreign support and to foreign pressure.
The real breaking point for the Ottoman government was the shrinking
of the Empire, which started with the Balkan defeat. Meanwhile,
the rapidly spreading Pan-Islamic and Pan-Turanist trends gradually
became the official policy of the Ýttihat ve Terakki government. This
reactionary nationalism inevitably required the re-delineation of
the geography, and the removal of internal traitors as well as the
local vehicles of treachery of foreign origin. Contrary to the `pan'
trends in Europe and Russia, our local ideology was not expansionist,
but was oriented to the removal of internal elements. Putting aside
the very weak Caucasian and Iranian strategies developed by Enver
Pasha under German pressure (which really cannot be considered),
the Pan-Turanian utopia known as the `Red Apple' was, in fact, only
a piece of romantic propaganda.
However, the top management of Ýttihat ve Terakki had no set beliefs on
this subject. The government plans to establish the Turkish culture,
language, and national economic structures in Anatolia were not put
in force until early 1914.
On the other hand, the war that started in Europe the same year
destroyed all insecure balances, and triggered the events, which led
to great human tragedies.
It is a fact that the Armenian gangs accumulated guns in large numbers
and that even some of the civilian Armenians were armed just before
the war. This arming had two aspects: one was offensive and part of
preparations for a rebellion, and the other was defensive and was
meant to help the families to protect themselves. The first serious
alarm for the Ottoman government was the congress held in Erzurum
by the Armenian militia in the summer of 1914. The unification of
delegates from all over the country under the Tashnak leadership was
an omen of a nearing and expansive revolt.
The military reports from the Erzurum and Koprukoy vicinity soon
after the congress confirmed the organic relations between Russians
and Armenians, and stated that a large number of Armenians equipped
with guns, bombs, maps, and carrying a considerable amount of money
were penetrating the vicinities of Muþ, Bitlis and Van. Other
intelligence reports indicated that Armenian regiments were formed
in the Russian army consisting of people who were well acquainted
with Eastern Anatolia and its topography.
Russia's declaration of war in early November made everything worse.
In the following months, terrorist activities were accomplished against
the Turkish authorities in many towns. For the Turks, the year 1915
started with the SarÝkamÝþ tragedy. The 3rd Army, which had
lost its power largely after this blow, still tried to maintain its
hold on a rather long front line. Thankfully, the Russians were also
too exhausted to attack; and both parties began to plan the spring
operations.
In February 1915, the government decided to remove the soldiers
of Armenian origin from the commanding level of military units and
from the staff of the Headquarters. This Regulation No. 8682 which
was encoded and sent to all commands on 25 February, pointed out the
Armenians revolts in Bitlis, Aleppo, Dortyol, Kayseri and stated that
there was French and Russian support behind the developments.
The critical moment approaches This was also a critical situation
from a military perspective.
Sivas, Erzincan, Erzurum on the northern, and Van, Bitlis, Diyarbakýr
on the southern operational fields of the 3rd Army had large
potential for Armenian revolt. In case these roads were blocked,
the connection with the rear of the front would be impossible, and
that would inevitably mean the complete destruction of the army.
Similarly, the railway, which then reached only as far as
Niðde-Ulukýþla, was the sole means of connection with the west for the
3rd Army. (Since the Russian fleet controlled the Black Sea, it was
very risky to transfer soldiers and ammunition to the Trabzon port by
sea). All provision and ammunition needs were met via this railway,
and, afterward, by carrying them on foot and carts for nearly 700-750
kilometres. If the Armenian activities in Konya and Adana would turn
into revolts, the security of the last stop of this railway would
be threatened, consequently destroying the Caucasian Army. The same
threats existed for the 4th Army on the Syrian front and the 6th Army
on the Mesopotamian front.
The Armenian revolts in Anatolia matured in this climate of war. It
became evident that the worst would happen between Armenians and
Turks. Many Armenian and Western historians claim that the unacceptable
actions such as brutality, denigration, rape and murder suffered by
the Armenians during that period forced them to revolt and to take up
arms in order to protect themselves. It is a fact that Armenians were
agitated and provoked both by the Armenian gangs and by Russia, France
and Britain on one hand; but, on the other hand, it is also a fact
that those people suffered great tyranny especially during February,
March and April in 1915. Even though the various accounts published
in the West relating the stories of the days before and during
deportation may in many cases be overly emotional and exaggerated,
one cannot believe that so many impartial observers were telling lies.
But, when we look at the chronology of the events, we see that the
revolts preceded the decision to deport. The first big revolt broke
out in Van and ended with the seizure of the town by Armenians.
During the revolt, which had started on 14 April, nearly 10,000
Turks and Kurds were killed in Van and its vicinity. Thousands fled
southward. The Armenian forces strengthened their power with the
arrival of the Russian army and sparked off new revolts in Bayburt,
Erzurum, Tortum and DiyarbakÝr. There was no way back. The Turkish
forces had a very brief hold on Van during which most civilians who
could not escape were killed.
Mutual brutalities against civilians on the part of both parties
dragged the whole region into a state of full-blown war. During the
First World War, no similar circumstances of full-blown war were
experienced on any continent, on any war front or on any rear front.
The notorious deportation decision was taken on 24th April. All
Armenians between the ages of 16-55 were to immigrate to an area
at least 25 kilometres away from the Baghdad railway in present
day Syria. The compulsory migration started in late May under the
control of civil officials and the local gendarmes who reported to
the Ministry of Interior.
The official orders issued by the government are full of detailed
measures and warnings to protect the lives and property of Armenians.
In actual fact, they were invitations to death. At that time,
approximately 1.5 million Armenians lived on Ottoman soil. Even though
nothing would happen to those hundreds of thousands on their long
road of migration, it was natural that many would die of sickness and
hunger. To accomplish a human transfer of such great size was beyond
the logistical capabilities of the Ottomans of the day. Bear in mind
that although the reinforcement troops who were transferred by train
from Istanbul to UlukÝþla and then went on foot to join the
army in the Caucasian Front were selected from young and strong men,
one in four soldiers was lost on the way because of insufficient food,
health measures and equipment.
In addition, there was no coordination or cooperation among the
Ministry of Interior, the military and the local administrations.
This situation left the migrating Armenians at the mercy of the local
administrators. The majority of Armenian adult men were killed either
before the migration started or en route just after the start. In
some towns, the governors did not allow shopping before the journey,
even for basic needs, with the intention of forcing Armenians to keep
their money on them.
The security of the immigrants was left to the responsibility of a
few gendarmes. Some of the officials sent by the ministry of Interior
were personally involved in people being seized and murdered.
Especially during the immigration in the east, many Armenians without
means of defending themselves were robbed and killed by the Kurdish
gangs. Many local gendarmes and fugitives of war (A.W.O.L.) stripped
Armenians off their property and lives. Thousands of Armenian women
were raped and kidnapped. The majority of those who were left alive
died soon after of hunger and sickness.
The immigrant convoys first stopped at provisional camps, and, after
a long journey, they were sent to the common camp areas in Der-Zor
and Basra. Hunger bordered on starvation. It was impossible to find
bread in the villages and towns on their way, since famine prevailed
in those places and the war conditions had worsened everything. There
were no tents in most of the camping sites. People slept in the open
air by either wrapping themselves in rags or coiling around each other.
The number of deported Armenians stood at around 1 million. Leaving
aside the underestimated and overestimated numbers, we can say that
the number of Armenians who died or were killed during the deportation
was around 500,000. In other words, one out of every two Armenians
had lost their lives.
During the period of armistice, the Ottoman government started
interrogating the 1397 officials who were actively or administratively
responsible for the Armenian massacre. 40 of them were sentenced to
death and others received major punishments. Many Ottoman statesmen,
high ranked officers, journalists and intellectuals who were handed
over to the British to be exiled in Malta were later released because
no there was no concrete evidence against them.
Could this be called a systematic annihilation?
Bearing in mind the background of the developments and the state of
war, it is difficult to say that the deportation decision was wrong
from a military angle. Armies blocked by revolts at their rear cannot
continue to fight. It is also true that a nation where nearly the
entire population of adult men and even young boys are driven to the
war fronts cannot defend its hometowns. The number of Muslims who
died, were killed or driven out of their homes and hometowns during
the decade of war between 1912-1922 was around 4 million. The loss
of both land and of people was huge. As for civilian losses, the
First World War dealt its worst blow to the people on this land. The
massacres by Armenians, called the `Armenian atrocities' in Turkey,
and especially the mass murders in the last year of the war by the
Armenian gangs who were withdrawing together with the Russian army,
added to the tragedy.
It is doubtless that all of these killings by Armenians cannot justify
the 1915 massacre of Armenians and old scores cannot be settled by
calculating the number of dead.
If we approach the issue from a human perspective, it is rather
difficult to say that the decision and the practice of deportation was
correct. The most important factor may be whether it was necessary
to implement deportation in places that did not have military or
strategic importance of the first magnitude. Just to take pre-emptive
measures, many Armenians living in Western or Central Anatolia were
also compelled to immigrate, notwithstanding their distance to the
regions and influence over the Armenian revolts.
However, in Western Anatolia, in the Aegean and Marmara regions
deportation was negligible and there was no deportation practice in
Izmir and Kutahya.
We cannot technically claim that the Ottoman government carried out
a systematic ethnic genocide. The government had barely any strategy
or equipment to do so and was not in a position to accomplish any
systematic and planned action. On the contrary, Ýttihat ve Terakki's
approach was to consider the deportation only as a `military operation'
because they had not developed a consistent policy for the Armenian
issue and had lost all control of the incidents.
Great losses When you take this approach, your feeling of humanity
and the responsibilities of your conscience lessen, if not completely
vanish.
Enver, Talat and Cemal Pashas took shelter behind this approach and
closed their ears to the cries of those with no means of refuge.
Nevertheless, there were truly conscientious government officials and
Turkish people in many places who had not lost their humane feelings
during the deportation practice. Many Armenians, especially women and
children, were hidden and protected by Turks, Kurds and Circassians.
At the end of the First World War, Turkey lost both the war and her
people. We have to include Armenians among those people. They were
the people of this land. They were our people. When they went away,
a large part of the rich culture also left our soil. Their absence
did not enrich, but impoverished us. Many artists, artisans, master
craftsmen were lost together with their traditions and knowledge.
And, instead of preserving the remaining traces, we preferred to erase
them. It was true that there were many Armenians in the Diaspora who
tried to erase us as well. So we have come to the present situation
where we mutually try to erase each other.
We have tried to erase the days of happy co-existence from our
memory. We have tried to forget that we used to offer each other
sweets on Muslim holidays and leavened bread on Easter.
We tried to forget that Armenians assigned 24-hour guards at the
distribution reservoir in Van, saying `The Muslims perform ablutions
with this water, therefore nothing dirty should be thrown in it'.
Pretending not see that this soil is a mosaic of millennia and
saying that we were our only friends, we were left alone. We could
not see that we would lose our own values when there were no `others'
around us, when there were no `different' traditions and conventions
in our lives. When we started to scrape off the eyes of the icons in
the Armenian churches, we could not realise that it would inevitably
lead us to the point of stealing the tombstones of our forefathers and
selling them to Westerners. When we bulldozed the Armenian cemeteries
in Van to find hidden treasures, we took one step closer to erecting
five-star hotels in the gardens of our national palaces in Istanbul.
Because we considered divergence not as a treasure but as a threat,
we gradually become glutted with our uniqueness. Looking only at each
other day after day, we lost our original colours and became dull.
"Armenian seed!"
We tried to wear each other down with cheap slanders, or rather to
use propaganda to win over the Western Big Brothers and European
public opinion. We did not seriously and scientifically research how
and what happened in 1915 and its consequences. A middle age man in
Amik village 50 kilometers to Van asked us why we had come. When we
said that we had learned the Armenian gangs had murdered the peasants
of this village in 1915; he said: `Did you only just learn this? Did
you only realise this after the French declaration?' Although a bit
confused, I calmly answered, `Yes, the Turks understand after the
fact.' Now it was his turn to be confused; and he said, `This was a
phrase used by Armenians in the past.' I said: `It may be so, but it
seems to be true.' Another taboo relates to the Armenians who have
survived. It is evident that most of them have been assimilated into
the Turkish society by changing their names and their religion. Even
if these people known as "Converts" don't forget their roots and their
own past, the majority of their children and grandchildren have been
and are still unaware of the truth. This group, which is larger than
assumed, was the result of marrying off Armenian girls who were hidden
and reared by Turks to Turkish and Kurdish men when they grew up.
Sharing the pains After they reached a certain age, the converted
Armenian men may have moved away for business, but the women mostly
stayed where they grew up; therefore it is easier to trace them. It
becomes clear that the unfortunate phrase "Armenian seed" is used
for the children of those women. The anger and reaction felt against
Armenians have led those who knew that they had convert family
members to conceal and even forget this fact. Although it is not
openly mentioned, there are "Armenian seeds" in many renowned Turkish
families occupying important posts. Treating this reality not as a
source of pride, but as a shame, has caused people to hide the truth,
fearful of being ousted by society, even when they themselves believe
that it was not a shame.
The long dead or still living grandmothers with Turkish names,
who from time to time get angry like an `Obstinate Armenian', who
never talk of the past but carry the traces of pain on their faces,
who are consulted for advice on critical matters, who often talk in
adages reflecting past experiences, are more than just an image for
many Turkish families.
The fact that we have assimilated tens of thousands Armenian converts
may seem awful to some. We can say that the taboo on the Armenian
issue in Turkey is concerned not only with those who died in 1915,
but also with those who have survived and lived like Turks.
When the creek reaches its spring We lived together with Armenians
in peace, mutual friendship and respect for nearly 1000 years
until 1915. We shared many things. This is something we should not
underestimate. We can now share the past sorrows. Without including
anyone else, without allowing anyone else to interfere. Can we say that
there is not a single Armenian among those in the Diaspora who suffers
homesickness, who longs to embrace the people here? Can you believe
that the Diaspora Armenians, who have lived in Western countries for
three generations and 90 percent of whose grandfathers and grandmothers
were born in Turkey, are only after reparations or soil?
Hrant Dink, the Editor in Chief of the Agos newspaper tells: "Nearly
20 years ago, a lady who was born in Sivas and had settled in France
after the deportation, came to visit the places where she was born and
grew up. She got so excited that she died of a heart attack. The Sivas
peasants told her daughter who came to take her body back to France
that they wanted to bury her in the village cemetery. The daughter
hesitated at first; but agreed with them and buried her mother there
when an elderly peasant woman said: "Let her mother stay here. The
creek has reached its spring."
We can still reach the spring of 1915.
June-2001 / Special Issue
--Boundary_(ID_0QWBQ+n3EqN43IzdJsPX6A)--
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress