THE REAL STORY OF THE ARMENIAN PLOT AGAINST TURKEY

Since the existence of the Turkish State and people on earth, they have always been a target for subversive activities aiming at dividing and destroying them. Such intrigue that have been constantly employed for centuries are still on today’s agenda. Each and every Turk can see that certain countries who allege to be friends and allies of Turkey, are engaged in an effort to create a Turkey who would be weak and in need for them and these dangerous developments leads him or her to get further tied to his or her mainland. Throughout history, the superpowers have always used Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, Greek Cypriots and Arabs and sub-contractors they have artificially created in order to carry out their ruses over Turkey. The same scenario is in play today as well. But this game has become very boring. The so-called ‘Armenian Genocide ’, a fabricated tale that is wanted to be resurrected from the ashes of history, is a material for the divisive games being played against Turkey. For the Turkish State, it is neither a problem, nor an issue nor a matter of blood feuding . The incidents we are currently experiencing are a token of the fact that the ‘superpowers’ who wanted to break down the Ottoman State and plunder its territories in the 19th century have introduced the same policy at these days when we are on the eve of year 2000. The sub-contractors used by these forces have not changed and GREECE again leads them.

It is time that the true realities behind the lies aiming at denigrating the Turkish State and people should be learnt by the world opinion. Following the tales of ‘Kurdish Genocide’, ‘Greek Cypriot Genocide’, ‘Genocide of Pontus Greeks’, nurtured by the Greek propaganda, they now try to escalate the so-called ‘Armenian Genocide’ lie against Turkey. Unfortunately, a group of American and French politicians let themselves become their puppets for the sake of a few votes expected from ‘Greek’ and ‘Armenian’ quarters. Until the year of 1867, there existed no religious or political disputes between the Armenians living within the boundaries of the Ottoman Empire, and the Turks. There was almost a oneness among the Turks and Armenians. When a Turkish or an Armenian man had to travel abroad or join the army, he could confidently leave his family to a Turkish or Armenian neighbor. Remarkably enough, there were only a handful of Armenians in Anatolia speaking the Armenian language. They attended the Turkish schools and loved the Turks more than anyone else. The warmth of these sentiments of mutual love and respect is still being kept today among the Turks and Armenians currently co-existing in Turkey. Furthermore, the Armenians were accustomed to the Turkish language so much that they read out their prayers in Turkish in their churches, though there was no intervention towards that direction. The number of Armenians who served the state during the Ottoman Empire at high ranks was quite high. They were never discriminated against by the Turks and had their places in the Turkish history in the best possible manner, with one exception only, with titles of ‘Cabinet Minister’, ‘Pasha’, or ‘Ambassador’.

These respectable people had significant contributions to the Turkish economy as well. For instance, Gabriel Noradoukian Pasha, Hagop Kazasian Pasha, and Marshall Garbed Artin Davut Pasha served as Minister of Foreign Affairs, of Postal Services and of Public Works, respectively. In addition, Oscar Mardikian, Kirkor Agathon, Petros Halladjian and Kirkor served as Cabinet Ministers in other fields. Hagop Kasasian who gained the trust of Sultans, served the Palace and served as the Minister of Treasure, as well as Michael Portakalian Pasha and Ohannes Pasha are some examples for outstanding Armenian figures who worked for the empire obediently. These harmonious and fraternal relations continued until after the Crimean War. Russia under Czar launched its policy of dividing the Ottoman Empire following its defeat at the Crimean War. Russia that aimed at creating problems for the Ottoman Empire at two separate fronts put into effect in 1870s its provocative and agitating policy, veiled under the argumentation of protecting the minorities, over the Armenians living in eastern Anatolia. As a result of this policy pursued by the Czarist Russia, the Armenians rebelled against the Ottoman Empire in 1876.

These riots were multiplied and turned into bloody battles in years, owing to the intervention of the then great powers in line with their own national interests, continuing until the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. When the first Armenian uprising broke out in 1862 in Zeytun-Adana, it was then followed by others, resulting to the gradual cooling of the all-time warm relations between the Turkish people and the Armenians. Rebellions launched by the Russians and Anatolian Armenians caused by the provocation of the Czarist Russia put the eastern front of the Ottoman Empire into very difficult positions during the Turkish-Russian War in 1877. Besides all this, when the Armenian patriarch Nersis Effendi paid a visit to the HQ of the war victor Russia at Yeþilköy and asked the assistance of the Czar for the establishment of an ‘Armenian State’, this showed the Turks bitterly that the Armenians no longer deserved the honor of ‘an obedient nation’. Furthermore, the Armenian terrorists trained in Russia committed terrorist acts even in Istanbul, the capital of the Empire. They even attempted to raid in 1896, the Ottoman Bank (Osmanlý Bankasý) in order to prepare the basis for the military involvement of the foreign countries. Despite this, there were some Armenians as well who did not join their rebellious kinsmen and not approve their bloody acts. They were threatened by underworld terror groups and their houses were bombed or set ablaze. The foremost reason for the interest shown by the Western countries in the Armenian issue was that the Russians introduced it to the world, in a dichotomy of Islam-Christianity. Nonetheless, the underlying fact of this special interest was the riches of the Ottoman Empire.

While the British, French and the Italians were interested in the capitulations, the Russians concentrated their attention on the Straits and the Turkish territories in the east. The presentation of the ‘Armenian Issue’ as if it is a proper problem began at the end of the 19th century, with the organization of secret Armenian associations. Officials of these associations were welcomed in Paris, London and St. Petersburg, more enthusiastically then they expected, and were paid attention to. The Gladstone Government in Britain grouped together and disciplined the scattered secret terror groups, ensuring the formation of propaganda committees among themselves. Function of the newly established propaganda mechanism was carried out in line with the policy of the Western countries. The Armenian propaganda suddenly changed its outlook during the Turkish War of Independence. Starting from the first years of 1900, the Armenians began an extensive propaganda activity in Russia. Because they knew that the weakest point of the Russians was to descend to the Mediterranean, the Armenians promised assistance on this issue thus drawing supporters on their side. This assurance was given to the Russians through the Armenian patriarch. Then, the Russians prepared the ground for the Armenian propaganda and extended financial help to them. Furthermore, on the very first of WWI, Russian Czar Nicholas called on the Armenians living in Turkey to unite with the ones living in Russia. Upon this invitation an article published in the Church’s mouthpiece, ‘Ararat’, bearing the signature of the Armenian Patriarch Kevork V suggested to the Armenians to unite with their kinsmen in Russia. The article was distributed to the entire world. In those countries where they established their propaganda mechanisms, the Armenians introduced themselves as the leaders of the oriental civilization. They even took one step further alleging that the Armenian presence lied underneath the ancient Greek civilization, thus advancing the theory of a ‘supreme race’. They did not suffice themselves with this and further claimed to have blood-ties with the French-- the issue even received backing from certain French circles. Prof. BRUN from the Paris University went so far as to argue that the Armenians and the French were from the same ethnic origin. According to BRUN, the Armenian kings came from the Lusignan dynasty. Once the elements of ‘civilization’ and ‘nobility’ in the Armenian propaganda were not credited, the next attempt was launched: ‘exploitation of sentiments’. And slogans of this propaganda were as follows: ‘People subjected to a genocide’, ‘suppressed nation’, etc.

As a result of the slogans conveyed by France to the effect that she would establish an independent Armenian State on the territories of the south Anatolia she occupied under the Treaty of Sevres of 1918, many Armenians living in other countries arrived in the region. The ‘Armenian Legion’ formed with the participation of these newcomers began serving in Cilicia. What France sought in establishing an Armenian Legion was not the formation of an independent Armenian State but the creation of a military unit that would serve the French interests. But the incidents did not occur as expected by France: when the massacres committed against the Turks in the region were started to be published in the French press, the Government in Paris fell into a difficult position. And when the reports sent by the French army commanders in Adana confirmed the incidents, the Armenian Legion was dissolved . After these developments, the massacres committed by the Armenians against the Turks were forgotten. On the contrary , as part of just an opposite propaganda, reports that the Armenians were massacred re-appeared in the French press. The most interesting aspect all was that the Turkish War of Independence was introduced to the French public opinion as ‘an Armenian Genocide’. ‘Amanus Armenian Republic’, declared in Cilicia, in June1920 was short-lived. As a result of a military operation realized by the Turkish army, it came to an end. In the same years, the Armenians launched a massive propaganda activity in the U.S. In particular, the New York Times newspaper considerably backed the Armenian positions, alleging that only President Wilson could delineate the boundaries of an Armenian State to be established.

 

Upon this propagandistic activity, work ‘for the delineation of the boundaries of the Armenian State' began. When the news to the effect that America would undertake the mandatory administration of a state, the Armenian propaganda was shaped towards this direction. When the studies revealed that lands packed by natural resources were in the hands of Britain, America dropped this project altogether. Failure to find lucrative areas led President Wilson to change his mind. But the Armenian propaganda machinery in America led to the creation of an ever-growing lobby in this country. Though the Russians appeared as the patrons of the Armenians, it is in history books that it is again the Russians who mass-murdered the Armenians living in the Caucus area. Shut-down of the Armenian schools in 1885, confiscation of the church property worth 100 million francs despite the fact that right to property ownership was granted to the Gregorian Church in 1836, arrests of rich Armenian businessmen and intellectuals in the Caucus area and the seizure of their property are only a few instances of the Russian oppression on the Armenians. Period of constitutionalism in 1908 brought about an atmosphere of rapprochement between the Turks and Armenians, even though it was a temporary one. Materiel used by Russia to lure the Armenians was the rich and fertile soil of Anatolia.

They promised Armenians to win these lands for them. However, Kurdish landlords possessed extensive territories on these lands. While the Russians fuelled this friction between Armenians and Kurds, certain Western countries took their place on the stage, as a party provoking both sides. In one of his books, Zarzecki, who served as a French consul in Van, highlights the Kurdish-Armenian relations as follows: “Armenians who worked as laborers on the territories of the Kurdish landlords for centuries were accustomed to this situation; they did not think of the existence of different situations and did not complain. As a matter of fact, they could not be considered as financially weak. After re-paying his debt to the Kurdish landlord, an Armenian was still left with sufficient money to survive. After the Van campaign of Osman Pasha, the strength of the Government grew against the Kurdish landlords, leading to a decline in the Kurdish demands from the Armenians. Armenians who got better with the proclamation of ‘Tanzimat’, began to become wealthy benefiting from the appropriate conditions created by the Government, while many of them bought massive lands. Even more, the lands in the Armenian hands began to be cultivated occasionally, by poor Kurdish peasants.” In the meantime, the Armenian mobs in Adana turned active, sparking off once again the Armenian insurgence in April 1909. During days when WWI was about to break out, Turkey was preparing for a war vis-a-vis Russia. The Russians had already completed their preparations for occupying the eastern Anatolia.

All the Armenian villages and all the Armenian quarters of the towns and cities on the eastern part of the line of Samsun-Ankara-Kayseri-Adana-Mersin were turned into an arms arsenal; each church-building and monastery into a fortified bastion. The Ottoman Government was closely and regularly following these preparations by the Armenians, trying to prevent them as much as possible and was trying to persuade the Armenians to give up such acts through efforts of conviction and advice, so as not to invite any foreign intervention . When WWI broke out, the Ottoman Empire remained neutral for a period of three months, during which it completed war preparations. In the meantime, Russia instructed the Armenians to act. Armenians were fleeing from the army service, while the Armenian armed gangs were torpedoing the behind-line services of the army. Armenian gangs coming from Russia had intensified acts of sabotage targeting the Turkish army. In the meantime, the Armenian gangs were ambushing the Turkish villages, indiscriminately murdering children, women and the elderly. The uprising in Adana is narrated by the then Governor of the province Cemal Pasha in his memoirs, as follows: “In the first months of 1909, rumors to the effect that Armenians would rebel and that a European navy was engaged in a preparation to occupy Adana with the aim of saving the Armenians from a so-called Turkish genocide spread around.

The Turkish people believed all this so much that families were convinced to move away from the area. In April 1909, relations between the two sides became so tense that everyone was certain that the two peoples would attack on each other. Finally, when the Armenians started an offensive upon the order of the religious leader of the Armenian community Monsignor Musheg on 14 April 1909, the Adana incidents broke out. In Adana, Tarsus, Hamidiye, Misis, Erzin, Dörtyol and Azizli and elsewhere, the Armenians committed so incredible massacres that, those who eye-witnessed those mass-murders still weep and damn perpetrators today. The culprit of the Adana massacre was Monsignor Musheg, author of “Les Vépres Ciliciennes”. Three months before the Adana incidents, intelligence units of the province of Adana discovered that weapons were consigned to the Armenians in Adana through various means. Monsignor Musheg and those around him were provoking the Armenians in the region, showing the Turks as human targets to be killed. While these events were occurring, the Balkans War began.

Capitalizing on the chain of unfortunate consequences being suffered by the Ottoman army that had to fight at many fronts at the same time, Russians and the French did not miss the chance of having the Armenians and Arabs attack the Turks. While on one hand, the French agitated the Arabs in Syria to launch an uprising, the Russian ambassador in Istanbul Giers told the following in a telegram sent to the Russian Foreign Minister on 26 November 1912, on the other: “Armenians ask the Russians to occupy the areas they inhabit. The Armenian Church prays to God so that Russia takes the Armenians under its patronage. We can benefit from the chaos that the Ottoman Empire is currently in. The basis is suitable for our armies to enter into certain areas.” In the meantime, the Russians softened down the hard policies enforced upon the Armenians living in the Caucus area. The Armenians packing the jails in the area were released under a political amnesty. By the abatement of their position, the Russians prepared the ground for taking the Armenian revolutionaries on their side. The only thing wanted by Russians was the perpetuation of the disorder in eastern Anatolia. For this, they were using the Armenians as a materiel. This policy was aimed at exploiting the sentiments of mercy of the Europeans through such slogans as: ‘We have brought under our protection, the helpless Armenians who are oppressed by the Turks’ and thus concealing in this way their true designs over Anatolia.

But for the continuance of this policy, an attack of the Kurds living in the same area on the Armenians was considered necessary. In this manner, the issue could be taken to the European platform through propagandistic pronouncements to the effect that, ‘it is the Turks, not the Kurds, who are killing the Armenians.’ In order to put this scenario into force, an uprising by the Kurdish landlords and influential sheiks against the Ottoman Empire was considered necessary. For this purpose, Russia brought Bedirhani Abdurrezzak Bey, one of the Kurdish leaders, under its patronage and extended funds to him for establishing a Kurdish princedom on one hand, while having Seyittiha in Bitlis rebel against the Ottoman State with the mediation of the Bitlis Consul, on the other. The situation of the Turkish and Kurdish refugees who fled from Diyarbakýr, Halep, and Adana in order to save their lives in the wake of the Armenian atrocities and massacres and took refuge in Konya, Erzurum, Erzincan and Sivas was heart-rending . But just because these poor people were Muslims, none of the German or American missionaries felt the need, deep in their conscience, to report about their ordeal or make the public opinion in the West know about the catastrophe and misery that fell upon them, in a literary style similar to the one they used to tell all about the Armenians.

Is there anyone today who knows or questions today how many of the Turks and Kurds were killed in cold-blood by the Armenians or how many of them were perished during the mass exodus in this connection, during the Russian invasion of the provinces of Trabzon, Erzurum, Van and Bitlis? But the truth is that the number of the Turks and Kurds who were killed because of this exceeds one million and a half. If the Turks are held responsible for the Armenian massacre, why are the Armenians not held responsible for the massacre of the Turks and the Kurds and for their overall tragic predicament ? Since its establishment, the modern Republic of Turkey has buried the past into the annals of history and has instead adopted a policy of regarding her previous enemies as friends, always behaving them honestly. Unfortunately, this peaceful and good-intentioned policy pursued by Turkey has never been reciprocated and even her most trusted friends turned their back to her and left her on her own during her most difficult times. The Armenians today have numerous associations, newspapers and many other organizations in the countries they inhabit. They conduct anti-Turkish activities in cooperation and collaboration with the Greeks and separatist Kurds. And this provides them with extensive propaganda possibilities. But one should be honest enough to admit that not every Armenian living outside Turkey is an enemy of Turkey.