Armenia: the end of the debate?

By Gwynne Dyer

Published October 21, 2009

THE FIRST great massacre of the 20th century happened in eastern Anatolia 94 years ago. Armenians all over the world insist that their ancestors who died in those events were the victims of a deliberate genocide, and that there can be no reconciliation with the Turks until they admit their guilt. But now the Armenians back home have made a deal.

On October 10, the Turkish and Armenian foreign ministers signed a accord in Zurich that reopens the border between the two countries, closed since 1993, and creates a joint historical commission to determine what actually happened in 1915. It is a triumph for reason and moderation, so the nationalists in both countries attacked it at once.

The most anguished protests came from the Armenian diaspora: eight million people living mainly in the United States, France, Russia, Iran and Lebanon. There are only three million people living in Armenia itself, and remittances from the diaspora are twice as large as the country’s entire budget, so the views of overseas Armenians matter.

Unfortunately, their views are quite different from those of the people who actually live in Armenia. For Armenians abroad, making the Turks admit that they planned and carried out a genocide is supremely important. Indeed, it has become a core part of their identity.

For most of those who are still in Armenia, getting the Turkish border re-opened is a higher priority. Their poverty and isolation are so great that a quarter of the population has emigrated since the border was closed sixteen years ago, and trade with their relatively rich neighbour to the west would help to staunch the flow.

Moreover, the agreement does not require Armenia to give back the Armenian-populated parts of Azerbaijan, its neighbour to the east. Armenia’s conquest of those lands in 1992-94 was why Turkey closed the border in the first place (many Turks see the Turkic-speaking Azeris as their “little brothers”), so in practical terms Armenian president Serge Sarkisian has got a very good deal.

The communities of the diaspora, however, believe the Armenian government has sold them out on the genocide issue. Their remittances are crucial to Armenia, so President Serge Sarkisian has spent the past weeks travelling the world, trying to calm their fury. In the end, he will probably succeed, if only because they have nowhere else to go.

But can any practical consideration justify abandoning the traditional Armenian demand that Turkey admit to a policy of genocide? Yes it can, because it is probably the wrong demand to be making.

Long ago, when I was a budding historian, I got sidetracked for a while by the controversy over the massacres of 1915. I read the archival reports on British and Russian negotiations with Armenian revolutionaries after the Ottoman empire entered the First World War on the other side in early 1915. I even read the documents in the Turkish General Staff archives ordering the deportation of the Armenian population from eastern Anatolia later that year. What happened is quite clear.

The British and the Russians planned to knock the Ottoman empire out of the war quickly by simultaneous invasions of eastern Anatolia, Russia from the north and Britain by landings on Turkey’s south coast. So they welcomed the approaches of Armenian nationalist groups and asked them to launch uprisings behind the Turkish lines to synchronise with the invasions. The usual half-promises about independence were made, and the Armenian groups fell for it.

The British later switched their attack to the Dardanelles in an attempt to grab Istanbul, but they never warned their Armenian allies that the south-coast invasion was off. The Russians did invade, but the Turks managed to stop them. The Armenian revolutionaries launched their uprisings as promised, and the Turks took a terrible vengeance on the whole community.

Istanbul ordered the Armenian minority to be removed from eastern Anatolia on the grounds that their presence behind the lines posed a danger to Turkish defences. Wealthy Armenians were allowed to travel south to Syria by train or ship, but for the impoverished masses it was columns marching over the mountains in the dead of winter. They faced rape and murder at the hands of their guards, there was little or no food, and many hundreds of thousands died.

If genocide just means killing a lot of people, then this certainly was one. If genocide means a policy that aims to exterminate a particular ethnic or religious group, then it wasn’t. Armenians who made it alive to Syria, then also part of the Ottoman empire, were not sent to death camps. Indeed, they became the ancestors of today’s huge Armenian diaspora. Armenians living elsewhere in the empire, notably in Istanbul, faced abuse but no mass killings.

It was a dreadful crime, and only recently has the public debate in Turkey even begun to acknowledge it. It was not a genocide if your standard of comparison is what happened to the European Jews, but diaspora Armenians will find it very hard to give up their claim that it was. Nevertheless, the grown-ups are now in charge both in Armenia and in Turkey, and amazing progress is being made.

n Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.

=======================================================


	Latest Articles :: Gallery :: Books :: Directory :: Contact Coming Soon – Selected Book Chapters Podcasts Ideas1 Ideas2 Ideas3 TVO

.

GWYNNE DYER has worked as a freelance journalist, columnist, broadcaster and lecturer on international affairs for more than 20 years, but he was originally trained as an historian. Born in Newfoundland, he received degrees from Canadian, American and British universities, finishing with a Ph.D. in Military and Middle Eastern History from the University of London. He served in three navies and held academic appointments at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst and Oxford University before launching his twice-weekly column on international affairs, which is published by over 175 papers in some 45 countries.

His first television series, the 7-part documentary ‘War’, was aired in 45 countries in the mid-80s. One episode, ‘The Profession of Arms’, was nominated for an Academy Award. His more recent television work includes the 1994 series ‘The Human Race’, and ‘Protection Force’, a three-part series on peacekeepers in Bosnia, both of which won Gemini awards. His award-winning radio documentaries include ‘The Gorbachev Revolution’, a seven-part series based on Dyer’s experiences in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union in 1987-90, and ‘Millenium’, a six-hour series on the
emerging global culture.

Dyer’s major study “War”, first published in the 1980s, was completely revised and re-published in 2004. During this decade he has also written a trio of more contemporary books dealing with the politics and strategy of the post-9/11 world: ‘Ignorant Armies’ (2003), ‘Future: Tense’ (2004), and ‘The Mess They Made’ (2006). The latter was also published as ‘After Iraq’ in the US and the UK and as ‘Nach Iraq und Afghanistan’ inGermany.

His most recent projects are a book and a radio series called ‘Climate Wars’, dealing with the geopolitics of climate change. They have already been published and aired in some places, and will appear in most other major markets in the course of 2009.

=========================================================================

DYER, GWYNNE

Canadian Journalist/Producer

Gwynne Dyer is a Canadian journalist, syndicated columnist and military analyst. He is best known for his documentary television series, War which echoed the peace movement’s growing concern over the threat of nuclear war in the early 1980s. Nominated for an Oscar in 1985, it was based on his own military experience and extensive study.

After serving in the naval reserves of Canada, the United States, and Britain, Dyer completed his doctoral studies in Military History at King’s College, University of London in 1973. He lectured on military studies for the next four years at the Royal Military Academy in Sandhurst, England before producing a seven-part radio series, Seven Faces of Communism for the CBC and ABC in 1978. This quickly led to another radio series, War, in six-parts, 1981. Based on this series, he was invited by the National Film Board of Canada, the country’s public film producer to enlarge it into a seven-part film series in 1983. Upon release to critical acclaim, the series was broadcast in forty-five countries.

War was a reflection of Dyer’s own growing concern about the proliferation of new technology, its impact on the changing nature of warfare and the growing threat of nuclear annihilation. Filmed in ten countries and with the participation of six national armies, it examined the nature, evolution and consequences of warfare. It featured interviews with top level NATO and Warsaw Pact military leaders and strategists, many of whom spoke to the Western media for the first time. The series argued that in an era of total war, professional armies were no longer able to fulfill their traditional roles. The growth of nationalism, conscript armies and nuclear technology had brought the world perilously close to Armageddon. War offered the unique perspective of the soldier from the rigorous training of young U.S. marine recruits at the Parris Island Training Depot in South Carolina, to the field exercises conducted by NATO and Warsaw Pact countries in Europe. It presented military officers from both sides talking frankly about how nuclear technology had changed their profession and follows them as they vividly describe how any superpower conflict would inevitably lead to an all out nuclear war. Dyer argued that the danger posed by the explosive mix of ideology and nuclear technology could only be mitigated by a total elimination of nuclear arsenals.

This award-winning series was soon followed by another production for the National Film Board of Canada in 1986, The Defence of Canada, an examination of Canada’s military role on the international scene. Following similar arguments postulated in War, Dyer called for Canada to set an example by rethinking its position in NATO and NORAD. He maintained his ties in the Soviet Union and in 1988-90 produced a six-part radio series The Gorbachev Revolution which followed the thunderous changes occurring in Eastern Europe. He served as a military commentator in Canada during the Gulf War and in 1994 his series The Human Race was broadcast nationally on the CBC. It was a personal enquiry into the roots, nature and future of human politics and the threat posed by tribalism, nationalism and technology to the world’s environment. He continues to publish his syndicated column on international affairs which is published on over 300 papers in some 30 countries.

-Manon Lamontagne

Gwynne Dyer

GWYNNE DYER. Born in St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada, 17 April 1943. Educated at the Memorial University of Newfoundland, B.A. in History, 1963; Rice University in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., M.A. in Military History, 1966; King’s College, University of London, Ph.D. in Military and Middle Eastern History, 1973. Served as Reserve Naval Officer in Royal Canadian Naval Reserve, 1956-64, 1966-68; U.S. Naval Reserve, 1964-66; British Royal Navy Reserve, 1968-73. Employed as a lecturer in military history, Canadian Forces College in Toronto, Ontario; senior lecturer in war studies, Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst, England, 1973-77; producer of various radio and television special series from 1978; syndicated columnist, international affairs from 1973. Recipient: International Film Festival Awards; International Film Festival Awards, 1984; Best Writing Gemini for The Space Between, 1986.

TELEVISION DOCUMENTARY SERIES

1983 War (co-writer/host)
1986 Defence of Canada
1994 The Human Race (host)

FILMS

The Space Between, 1986 (co-writer/host); Harder Than It Looks, 1987; Escaping from History, 1994 (writer); The Gods of Our Fathers, 1994 (writer); The Tribal Mind, 1994 (writer); The Bomb Under the World, 1994 (writer).

RADIO

Seven Faces of Communism, 1978; Goodbye War, 1979 (writer/narrator); War, 1981; The Gorbachev Revolution, 1988-90; Millennium, 1996.

FURTHER READING

“Dyer’s Contrived Truth Doesn’t Tackle the Real Consequences.” Vancouver (Canada) Sun, 3 September 1994.

Dodds, Carolyn. “Too Close for Comfort.” Saturday Night (Toronto, Canada), August 1988

“Recording a Global Culture.” Maclean’s (Toronto, Canada), 25 March, 1996.

See also Canadian Programming in English

October 21, 2009

Houston: TurkishPAC’s Position on the Recently Signed Protocol

Written by Administrator

Thursday, 15 October 2009 16:00

Turkey closed its Armenian Border and suspended the relations between Turkey and Armenia as a consequence of the Armenian occupation of the Azerbaijani territory of Nagorno-Karabagh, in 1992. Recently a protocol between the Turkish and the Armenian governments has been signed, which may lead to the opening of Borders and normalizations of relations between the two nations, if approved by both nations’ parliaments.

To the best of our knowledge, the protocol agreed by the two sides does not have any provisions that indicate that Armenia has promised to meet any of the conditions Turkey has put forth for opening of the Armenian Border and normalization of the relations between the two nations. Quite the contrary, the Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian has recently stated that normalization of the relations between the two states should have no preconditions, and that Turkey and Armenia have a mutual understanding to that end.

TurkishPAC firmly opposes normalization of the Turkish-Armenian relations without preconditions. It believes that normalization should depend on Armenia’s agreeing to certain conditions. In particular, Armenia should:

Comply with the UN resolution to withdraw from the Azerbaijani territory of Nagorno-Karabagh, which it illegally occupies,

Drop false “genocide” claims against Turkey that go back almost 100 years and agree to the establishment of a joint committee of historians, as proposed by Turkey, to study and judge the 1915 events. As Turkey has declared it would do so, Armenia should declare that it would consider the findings of such a committee binding.

Withdraw its support to the Armenian Diaspora on the latter’s campaign to disseminate “genocide” propaganda, and,

Remove indirect reference to a Greater Armenia in its Constitution by amending Article 13 of Chapter 1 that describes its national coat of arms.

With regard to items 3 and 4, note should also be made that in its Declaration of Independence in 1990, Armenia declared its support to false “genocide” claims against Turkey and has referred to Eastern Anatolia as “Western Armenia,” and as such, considers this area as part of Armenia. That is not a friendly posture toward a neighbor.

TurkishPAC continues to view with apprehension the Turkish Government’s signing a protocol with Armenia, which will lead to opening the border and normalization of the relations between the two countries without any preconditions.

TurkishPAC Board of Directors

October 21, 2009

Turkey’s The policy of “zero problems” creating “new problems”

From: Ergun [[email protected]]

The policy of “zero problems” with neighbors seems to be creating “new problems” with neighbors

Case one: Azerbaijan.

The U.S.-Russia-mandated protocols with murky gains but sure losses for Turkey are already costing Turkey dearly. Check out these recent developments:

1- Azerbaijan Looks For Gas Routes To Europe Bypassing Turkey

2- Azerbaijan warns Turkey, West on gas exports

3- Azeri leader slams Turkey as gas route to Europe

https://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSLG44450320091016

4- Azerbaijan stops flying the Turkish flags over the Turkish martyrs’ cemetary in Baku.

When the U.S. and Russia (an EU) forced these protocols on Turkey, they probably expected the estrangement of Azerbaijan. If the oil and gas lines from Azerbaijan to Turkey run dry, the biggest beneficary would be, you guessed it, Russia. Risk all you got for something in return that may or may not pan out. We are sold this deal as “dialog, normalization, peace, and democracy” package. Sometimes I wish an engineer was the leader in Turkey so that he would know simple math, as in addition and subtraction.

April 24 is not far away. We will all see if the protocols bring “normalization and peace” or ” more chaos, polarization, and stalemate”, with the net result of poorer Turkey due to weakened/lost energy lines. (Prediction: the latter. Why? Because the deal incredibly left Azerbaijan out. Huge mistake!)

Case two: Israel

This one has to do with Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria, although the tensions came to a head over other things like a cancelled joint military exercises and an aired TV-show:

TV Show Deepens Split Between Israel and Turkey

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB125573461255590957

Turkey points to Israel to deflect from itself

Netanyahu declares in Madrid that due to recent developments, Turkey is no longer an impartial mediator for peace talks between Syria ad Israel.

My take on all this:

I am not against dialog or peace. I am against poor business deals, especially if they are conducted under pressure of partisans with vested interests clashing with yours.

The foreign policy of Turkey should be updated from “zero problems with neighbors” to “zero old and new problems with neighbors”.

Ergun KIRLIKOVALI

October 20, 2009

Houston/TEXAS: TurkishPAC’s Position on the Recently Signed Protocol

Written by Administrator

Thursday, 15 October 2009 16:00

Turkey closed its Armenian Border and suspended the relations between Turkey and Armenia as a consequence of the Armenian occupation of the Azerbaijani territory of Nagorno-Karabagh, in 1992. Recently a protocol between the Turkish and the Armenian governments has been signed, which may lead to the opening of Borders and normalizations of relations between the two nations, if approved by both nations’ parliaments.

To the best of our knowledge, the protocol agreed by the two sides does not have any provisions that indicate that Armenia has promised to meet any of the conditions Turkey has put forth for opening of the Armenian Border and normalization of the relations between the two nations. Quite the contrary, the Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian has recently stated that normalization of the relations between the two states should have no preconditions, and that Turkey and Armenia have a mutual understanding to that end.

TurkishPAC firmly opposes normalization of the Turkish-Armenian relations without preconditions. It believes that normalization should depend on Armenia’s agreeing to certain conditions. In particular, Armenia should:

Comply with the UN resolution to withdraw from the Azerbaijani territory of Nagorno-Karabagh, which it illegally occupies,

Drop false “genocide” claims against Turkey that go back almost 100 years and agree to the establishment of a joint committee of historians, as proposed by Turkey, to study and judge the 1915 events. As Turkey has declared it would do so, Armenia should declare that it would consider the findings of such a committee binding.

Withdraw its support to the Armenian Diaspora on the latter’s campaign to disseminate “genocide” propaganda, and,

Remove indirect reference to a Greater Armenia in its Constitution by amending Article 13 of Chapter 1 that describes its national coat of arms.

With regard to items 3 and 4, note should also be made that in its Declaration of Independence in 1990, Armenia declared its support to false “genocide” claims against Turkey and has referred to Eastern Anatolia as “Western Armenia,” and as such, considers this area as part of Armenia. That is not a friendly posture toward a neighbor.

TurkishPAC continues to view with apprehension the Turkish Government’s signing a protocol with Armenia, which will lead to opening the border and normalization of the relations between the two countries without any preconditions.

TurkishPAC Board of Directors

October 18, 2009

The Cypriot Stumbling Block

This analysis by Robert Ellis was first published at PoliGazette.

Like Ireland, Cyprus has been a victim of geography and both are today still divided. As the Arab geographer Muqaddasi wrote in 985: “The island of Qubrus is in the power of whichever nation is overlord in these seas”. And with its position 40 miles off the southern coast of Turkey and 70 miles from Syria it has been a strategic prize for centuries.

This outpost of Hellenic civilisation was conquered by the Crusaders in the twelfth century to secure their route to the Holy Land and later by Venice. When Famagusta fell to the Ottomans in 1571, the island’s fate was sealed. Therefore it is ironic that the British took over Cyprus with its mixed population in 1878 as a result of a deal with Turkey to protect the Ottoman Empire against the Russians, who have lurked in the background ever since.

The island’s Greek identity was emphasized in its support of the Greek revolt against Ottoman rule in 1821 and with the participation of both the Greek Cypriot majority and the Turkish Cypriot minority in a legislative council under British rule. When other Greek islands under Turkish occupation such as Crete and the Dodecanese were united with Greece, the same demand grew in Cyprus. As a result, a plebiscite held among Greek Cypriots in 1950 showed a 96.5 percent support for enosis (union with Greece).

As the British were only prepared to give the Cypriots limited self determination, a terrorist organisation EOKA was formed, which in 1955 launched a campaign to force Britain to withdraw. But the campaign was counter-productive, as this was met by the formation of the Turkish Cypriot paramilitary TMT with a demand for taksim (partition).

However, as Britain depended on the Middle East for 70 percent of its oil imports, it was not prepared to give up control of the island. As Prime Minister Sir Anthony Eden put it at the time: “No Cyprus, no certain facilities to protect our supply of oil. No oil, unemployment and hunger in Britain. It’s as simple as that.”

Consequently, Britain invited both Greece and Turkey to a conference in London to discuss questions concerning the Eastern Mediterranean. But as defence minister Selwyn Lloyd explained to the Cabinet before the conference: “Throughout the negotiations our aim would be to bring the Greeks up against the Turkish refusal to accept enosis and so condition them to accept a solution, which would leave sovereignty in our hands.”

Independence
The ruse was only partly successful, because under American pressure for guaranteed independence, a deal between was brokered between Greece and Turkey in 1959, which resulted in a power-sharing constitution and independence the following year. A Treaty of Establishment also provided for two permanent British bases, and a Treaty of Guarantee between the new Republic, Greece, Turkey and the UK, prohibited the union of Cyprus with any other state or partition.

Nevertheless, Greek Cypriot nationalists under the leadership of their new President, Archbishop Makarios, continued to strive for “Enosis and only enosis”. When Makarios three years later proposed a number of amendments to the Constitution, which reduced the status of the Turkish Cypriots to that of a minority, fighting broke out between the two communities. In March 1964 this resulted in a UN resolution to put in a peacekeeping force, UNFICYP, which has been in place for the last 45 years.

After an attack by the Greek Cypriot National Guard on Turkish Cypriot positions Turkey recciprocated with the bombing of Greek Cypriot villages and the situation was critical. Makarios, who had already joined the non-aligned movement, appealed to the Soviet Union for arms and support, and George Ball, the US Acting Secretary of State, told President Johnson they faced the most dangerous confrontation since the Cuban missile crisis.

With the additional risk of war between two NATO allies, Greece and Turkey, Johnson addressed a severe warning to Turkey against military intervention. Consequently, Dean Acheson, the former Secretary of State, and Ball put forward a plan for the partition of Cyprus to solve what Johnson had called “one of the most complex problems on earth”.

Because of US preoccupation with the situation in Vietnam the plan was shelved but another outbreak of fighting in 1967 once again brought Greece and Turkey to the brink of war. By 1974 Makarios, “the Castro of the Mediterranean”, had succeeded in alienating the Greek junta, Turkey and the United States, who together brought about his downfall.

Partition
In July the same year the Greek junta instigated a coup to topple Makarios and five days later – when Britain failed to intervene – Turkey took matters in its own hands and invaded, dividing the island into two zones. The coup failed and Makarios was reinstated but a few months before he died in 1977 he came to the conclusion: “It is in the name of enosis Cyprus has been destroyed.”

Since 9/11 the strategic importance of the island has increased and a solution to the Cyprus question is the key to improved relations between EU and NATO. Turkey’s refusal to recognize the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus, which became a member of the EU in 2004, is also a stumbling block to its own accession talks.

There have been numerous initiatives on the part of the UN to reunify Cyprus, latest the Annan Plan in 2004. This was, however, rejected by the Greek Cypriots, because it failed to provide for the complete withdrawal of Turkish troops and adequate restitution and compensation for the loss of Greek Cypriot property. There is also the fact that Turkey since the occupation has maintained a policy of colonisation and assimilation by mainland Turks.

In 1983 the Turkish Cypriots declared the northern part of the island to be an independent state, which has only been recognized by Turkey. This, or a confederation with the Greek Cypriot south, is the preferred Turkish solution but recently Turkey has struck an ominous note. In an echo of Germany’s “Heim ins Reich” (Back to the Reich) policy in 1938 Prime Minister Erdogan has indicated his patience is exhausted and Foreign Minister Davutoglu cannot say whether Turkey has reached its final borders as established by the 1923 Lausanne Treaty.

Given Turkey’s strategic importance, it would be unfortunate if Europe faced a new Sudetenland crisis, which would put an end to Turkey’s prospects of EU membership. And to do as Neville Chamberlain and dismiss the Cyprus issue as “a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing” could be fatal.

Robert Ellis is a regular commentator on Turkish affairs in Denmark and from 2005-2008 was a frequent contributor to the Turkish Daily News.

October 17, 2009

Letter Of Turkish Armenian Sevan Ince Before Committing Suicide

© This content Mirrored From http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com

The other night, we four Armenian friends were out from our Clubhouse and enjoying our water pipes at Galatasaray. The conversation turned around and came to the known topic. I sensed that every one is troubled on the same subject. How would you make this heard to the world as a Turk with Armenian origin being a simple citizen of Turkey? . .

You are not a reputed artist, politician or president of some association that others would extend the microphone to you for an interview. You are not a columnist, so that you can make your ideas heard from your newspaper corner. All is fine, but we are fed up with this affair. Other persons speak in our place, knowing or having no idea.

On one side say that “there was a genocide made to Armenians” and on the other side they say “there is no genocide”. Now the latest fashion is those who say, “let us leave it to historians”. I just look to those who say that there was a genocide committed, and I see that they are either diaspora members full of hatred and grudge or politicians, who have a benefit from the matter. I look at those who say “there was no genocide” and I see that they have no deep knowledge, but refuse it as a habit. Moreover, speaking of historians, for God’s sake, what are they going to find out? Can be there a document of genocide? If a document is found by accident, a counter document is found and the argument continues to nowhere.

The truth is known by me and others like me, but no others! We are persons who heard the incidents from the first hand. We are Turkish Armenians. The Turkish Armenians bear a great difference from the Outside Armenians! We are the grand children of those Armenians who stayed in Turkey during the relocation or those who came back. We did not hear only one type of stories. Diaspora Armenians know only stories of death. They did not come back and did not see the embarrassed faces of their neighbors. They accuse only Turks for these deaths, they name all as genocide. But Turkish Armenians have many other different stories.

For example, my grandfather was telling how his elder brother was taken from his farm in Erzincan and that he had to pay a donkey-load of gold to a corporal as ransom to save him. None of them, the gold or brother came back! My grandmother was telling how the youngsters of the village were gathered, given arms and made revolutionist gangs. Persons who spoke foreign language gave their uniforms.

My grandfather used to tell in cries about the Ottoman Captain Sinan, who did his utmost to save all his family in Kayseri. Thanks to the captain, none in the family was ever hurt. We listened to stories of bloodshed, but we also heard of the Turks who lied in front of the Turkish soldiers to save his Armenian friend carried away, or the neighboring Turks who opened their arms when the relocated persons returned home.

Therefore, I say let them ask us. No one can be more objective than us. This story has a long version explanation and a short one. The short one is as follows:

A portion of the community was mislead by imperialist powers and fought for separation. The Ottoman government was angered and took decision for relocation. This relocation was carried under the difficult conditions prevailing at that time. The exiles were carried in various manners, and helpless persons, children suffered and died. These deaths were because of epidemics and hunger. There was no organized killing made by Ottoman soldiers. The deaths out of the epidemics are separate individual cases, and were done by the robbers of the region, to get hold of the gold in possession of the people being marched. It is a matter of debate if the Ottoman army fighting on several fronts, had enough soldiers to avoid the murders during the marches. Under the circumstances and given the fact that Armenians living in the western parts of the country never had such sufferings, this cannot be called a genocide. You can give other names, but none can be named “genocide”. Furthermore, the number of 1.5 million does not signify the number of deaths, but the number of losses.

We Turkish Armenians know pretty well that Anatolia is full of Armenians who became Moslem, during or after these incidents. These persons, when they became free later, did not return to their own religion and since they hide their past, they were put in the column of those lost. This is the short explanation.

If one has to speak, we can speak and tell them the long version of the incidents. There can be no other historians better than us!. As regards the French, they should chew musty cheese.

Sevan İnce

(Note: This letter was left by Sevan İnce, before he committed suicide, because his business went bad).