Tag: Ermeni Sorunu

  • Genocide is a legal term, and it can only be established legally

    Genocide is a legal term, and it can only be established legally

    Genocide is a legal term, and it can only be established legally 

    Dear Honorable Member of the House of Commons,

    In relation to the debate (Vol. 703) brought to the session of the House on the 9th of November 2021, by Mr. Tim Loughton, it is important to remember that genocide is an internationally agreed legal term. It is not a loose and ambiguous political concept.  

    The United Nations 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines the crime of genocide and establishes the legal framework for genocide atrocities.  This Convention was unanimously adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948 and then ratified in 1951 when it went into effect as a judicial ruling. 

    Since then, the UN Genocide Convention signifies the international community’s commitment to “never again” after the atrocities committed during the Second World War. 

    Therefore the genocide accusations should neither be politicized nor popularized loosely and ambiguously. Categorizing a historical or a current event as genocide is not something to be arrived at through the personal or legislative decisions as some country’s Parliaments seem to have done. 

    UN Genocide Convention

    The act of genocide, to be a crime, has to be proven under defined circumstances outlined in articles 2-6 of the Convention.

    Article 2 and 3 of the Convention categorize the atrocities that ought to be punished under the Convention as genocide. These atrocities of genocide are those “acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” 

    Special Intent 

    The key element distinguishing the crime of genocide from other crimes is the “intent to destroy”. For genocide to have any legal validity, there must have been an “intent” on the part of perpetrators to wipe out an entire ethnic group. Therefore, without proven “intent to destroy”, no act can be legally valid as genocide. 

    In the literature of law, the special intent called “dolus specialis” is necessarily sought in all genocide accusations.

    Articles 187, 188 and 189 of the International Court of Justice’s Bosnia ruling explicitly state that “a separate notional element must be present” to define an act as genocide. This notional element is also present in the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia’s (ICTY) Kupreskic case as “the need for the presence of intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a group.”

    The “note verbale” released on March 1, 1920, by Sir Eric Drummond, Secretary General of the League of Nations, confirms that there is no evidence for that in the case of the Armenians.

    Individual Criminal Responsibility

    Article 4 of the Convention relates to the “punishable atrocities of genocides” to the individual criminal responsibility. According to this article, “genocide” is a crime that can only be committed by “real persons. Therefore, only real persons – not legal entities – can be charged with the crime of genocide. 

    Court Ruling

    Another important element distinguishing the crime of genocide from other crimes is that, for an event to be considered genocide, there should be a court ruling. This element – court ruling – is defined in Article 6. It reads, “trial of persons charged with genocide” as “by a competent / adequate-qualified tribunal of the state in the territory of which the act was committed” and “an international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction.”

    Without a fair judicial trial by a defined court or tribunal, characterizing a historical event as genocide through personal or legislative decisions is a highly political and politicized act. It has no value in terms of international law.  This has been confirmed by international jurisprudence.  The European Court of Justice, in Dec. 17, 2003, and April 17, 2004, ruled in that the recognition of the “Armenian genocide” by the European Parliament “is a political measure with no judicial value.”  On the contrary, H.M. Attorney General Sir Gordon Heward’s Malta Tribunal Judgement which acquitted the Ottoman Turks who were alleged to have been responsible for the misrule of the Armenian relocation policies have its judicial value as defined by the United Nations 1948 Genocide Convention. 

    Yours sincerely,

    Uluc Gurkan

    Lecturer in Politics

    www.ulucgurkan.net – www.twitter.com/Uluc_Gurkan

    [email protected][email protected]

    0090 312 4198777 – 0090 532 2180758

    • Deputy Speaker-Turkish Grand National Assembly/TGNA (1995-1999)
    • Vice President-Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe/PACE (2000-2002)
    • Vice PresidentParliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe/OSCE-PA(1992-1995) 
    • Head of the Turkish Delegation-Parliamentary Assembly of the Western European Union/WEU-PA (1999-2002)

              Member- Turkish Grand National Assembly/TGNA (1991-2002)

              Middle East Technical University and Ufuk University (2003-….)

  • Why diminish the importance and uniqueness of the Holocaust!

    Why diminish the importance and uniqueness of the Holocaust!

    uluc gurkan

    Re: Why diminish the importance and uniqueness of the Holocaust!

    Dear Honorable Member of the House of Commons,

    Armenian genocide lobby argue that the World War I tragedy in Eastern Anatolia was the same as what happened to the Jewish people in Nazi Germany.  

    Can this really be justified? This is what Bernard Lewis, the world’s foremost eminent British-American Jewish historian of Orientalism, Islam, and the Middle East says on the subject:

    This is a downright falsehood” and adds: “Armenians as well as the Turks suffered and perished in equal measure…”

    What happened to Armenians was the result of a massive Armenian rebellion against the Turks, which began even before war broke out and continued on a larger scale…” 

    “The Armenians are proud of their struggle for an independent Armenia against the Ottoman regime. It was a national liberation movement, and they fought with great courage. But what happened to the Armenians has no similarity to what happened to the Jews in cold-blooded bureaucracy.”

    “Armenians had an armed rebellion: They collaborated with Russians against the Turks. They killed many in Van that they seized and held for a while to hand it over to the invaders. Ottomans were very careful by not hurting Armenians in the deportations. There is clear evidence of a decision by the Turkish Government, to deport the Armenian population from the sensitive areas. Which meant naturally the whole of Anatolia. Not including the Arab provinces which were then still part of the Ottoman Empire. There is no evidence of a decision to massacre. There was guerrilla warfare all over Anatolia. The illegal groups, and others may have attacked Armenians later and caused casualties however this is not related with the Holocaust in Germany.”(1)

    The League of Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Fridtjof Nansen described this tragedy at the Sixteenth Plenary Meeting of the League of Nations on September 21st, 1919:

    The allied Western Powers had said to the Armenians ‘If you fight with us against the Turks and if the war ends successfully for us, we promise to give you a national home, liberty, and independence… The Armenians fought for the Allied Powers. Two hundred thousand volunteers sacrificed their lives for the cause of the Entente; but when the Armistice was signed and peace concluded, the promise given to the Armenians were forgotten…”(2)

    As Bernard Lewis and Fridtjof Nansen point out, Ottoman Armenians openly and intentionally took up arms, travelled to Russia for training and fought for an independent Armenia. When the war broke out, they sported Russian and French uniforms and fought against the Ottoman Army. Non-uniformed Armenian irregulars/bandits also fought against the Ottoman army from behind the lines.

    Therefore, no possible similarity can be established between the Ottoman Armenians and German Jews. Jews of Germany were not engaged in an armed rebellion against the German State. They were not collaborating with the allies against Germany. Moreover, Jews did not demand the dismemberment of the nation in which they lived. 

    Besides, the Ottoman government had no intention of exterminating the Armenians as no such evidence exists, while the Armenian genocide lobby insists on this with falsified documents and basing it on the discredited propaganda “Blue Book” and discredited author Tamer Akcam’s books. 

    On the 1st of March 1920, the “note verbale” released by Sir Eric Drummond, Secretary General of the League of Nations, British politician, and diplomat, declared that “in Turkey, … massacres carried out by irregular bands who were entirely outside the control of the Central Turkish Government.” (3)

    Contrary to all this, the Armenian genocide lobby want to compare their tragedy with the Jewish Holocaust. They seek to benefit from the use of the word. But this only leads to diminishing the significance and uniqueness of the Holocaust.

    There is ample evidence, recognized by a competent International Court proving that genocide was committed in Nazi Germany against the Jews. The Tribunal at Nuremberg proved the guilt of the perpetrators of the Holocaust and sentences were carried out in accordance with agreed-upon procedures. 

    Therefore, the Holocaust is an undisputable historical fact. 

    On the contrary, Malta Tribunal, which was convened by the World War I victors and conducted by Great Britain’s highest prosecution authority, H.M. Attorney General Sir Gordon Heward (4),  acquitted those Ottoman Turks who were alleged to have been responsible for the misrule of the Armenian relocation policies. 

    Yours sincerely, 

             UluçGürkan

    Uluç Gürkan – Lecturer in Politics

    • Deputy Speaker-Turkish Grand National Assembly/TGNA (1995-1999)
    • Vice President-Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe/PACE (2000-2002)
    • Vice PresidentParliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe/OSCE-PA(1992-1995) 
    • Head of the Turkish Delegation-Parliamentary Assembly of the Western European Union/WEU-PA (1999-2002)

    Member- Turkish Grand National Assembly/TGNA (1991-2002)

    Lecturer at METU & Ufuk University (2003- ……) 

    Middle East Technical University and Ufuk University (2003-….)

    www.ulucgurkan.net – www.twitter.com/Uluc_Gurkan

    [email protected][email protected]

    0090 312 4198777 – 0090 532 2180758

    ——————————–

    1 Bernard Lewis – with Buntzie Ellis Churchill, Notes on a Century:Reflections of a Middle East Historian (Viking;2012) pp. 3325-338)

    2 Leage of Nations, Sixteenth Plenary Meeting, September 21th, 1929 the Turks, We Promise to Give Them National Home, Liberty and Independence  (League of Nations Official Gazettee: Şükrü Server Aya,  Twisted Law versus Documented History, pp. 7-8

    3 Şükrü Server Aya, Twisted Law versus Documented History, (Belfast: Athol Books, 2013) p. 5

    4  Sir Gordon Heward : H.M. Attorney General (Jan.10, 1919-March 6, 1922) – Lord Chief Justice of England (March 8, 1922 – Oct. 12, 1940) 

  • Patriotism Perverted

    Patriotism Perverted

    patriotism perverted


    Patriotism Perverted

    A discussion of the deeds
    and the miedeeds of the
    Armenian Revolutionary
    Federation, the so-called
    Dashnagtzoutune

    By
    K. S. PAPAZIAN

    BOSTON
    BAIKAR PRESS
    1934

    ———-

    COPYRIGHT 1934
    By K. S. PAPAZIAN
    All rights reserved

    (Printed in the United States of America)

    DEDICATED

    To the memory of those Armenian martyrs
    who, for their devotion to their people and
    their loyalty to their fatherland, met death
    at the hands of their brothers.

    [pp. 7-8]

    PREFACE

    In the following pages I have tried to present to the English speaking Armenians of
    this country and to the American public in general, a fairly clear picture of an
    organization, that has received so much publicity in connection with the recent
    assassination in New York of Archbishop Leon Tourian.

    An understanding of the background, past activities, the purposes and the methods of
    the Armenian Revolutionary Federation may be important, if we are going to try and
    rid the Armenian-American community life, of the predatory inclinations of this
    society. Its mode of organization, its discordant mental make up as expressed in its
    publications, its belief in the use of violence rather than persuasion and free
    discussion to overcome opposition, its tendency to disregard and distort the will of
    the majority in dealing with public issues, are all alien to our American ideals and
    Christian principles, and have repeatedly precipitated conflicts in the past.

    This booklet, I hope, will help create in the minds of its readers a fairly adequate
    idea as to the moral and physical dangers with which our youth and our cornmunity
    are threatened on account of Dashnag activities. Such knowledge is necessary, if we
    are to ward ofi these dangers, and establish peace and harmony in our midst. The
    task of presenting the Dashnagtzoutune in its true political and moral charactelwas
    rather dificult, as this society has had the agility of repeatedly changing its face
    and color with perfect ease of conscience. At first they were nationalists diluted
    with socialism; then they turned out and out socialists, with bolshevistic leanings,
    and adopted the red flag for their emblem. However, it co-operated with the
    imperialistic tyrants of Turkey. It now professes nationalism again, and even leans
    towards Facism or Hitlerism, still clinging to the red flag and dangling a daggar,
    symbol of revenge and conspiracy, from its emblem.

    I have tried to be fair in my presentation of facts and in my judgments. Most of my
    conclusions are based on facts of contemporary history, and are fortified with
    quotations from Dashnag publications and Dashnag authors. My picture of the A. R.
    Federation will not be pleasing to the eyes of its devoted adherents; however, I
    have tried to cling to the idea, that at least the rank and file of the society,
    although deluded and misled, still have patriotism for a motive, even though a
    distorted and perverted form of patriotism.

    K. S. PAPAZIAN,

    Boston, Massachusetts,
    May 10, 1934.


    [p. 9]

    THE BEGINNING

    The Armenian Revolutionary Federation, the so-called Dashnagtzoutune, was organized in the
    Caucasus, in 1890, through the consolidation of several secret revolutionary societies,
    that had as a common purpose or ideal, more or less definite ideas about the liberation of
    Armenia from the oppression of the Turks. The elements that composed the Dishnagtzoutune
    in the beginning, were Armenian intellectuals belonging to the Russian school of
    socialism, Arrnenian groups who were staunch nationalists, some pure and unadulterated
    Marxists, some liberals and some representatives of the bourgeois classes.

    Speaking of this assortment of groups, Mikael Varandian, an ideologist and historian of
    the Dashnagtzoutune, states: “Right and left, moderates and radicals, those with
    national and all-human tendencies…. all imbued with the idea of the liberation of the
    Armenians of Turkey.” (“History of the A. R. Federation”, by M. Varandian,
    Vol. I, Page 59, Paris 1932. ).

    This idea of the liberation of the Armenians of Turkey was interpreted difierently by
    difiercnt groups that sought the union. For socialists, liberation did not mean
    necessarily the independence of the Armenians of Turkey from the rest of the peoples
    composing the Ottoman empire. They rather imagined a condition where all workers,
    Armenian, Turkish, Kurdish etc., would enjoy universal freedom and be free from economic
    oppression. For the nationalists, liberation meant at least some measure of autonomy for
    the Armenians in Turkish Armenia. The contending groups finally agreed upon the general
    principle, that they should shake off the abominable yoke of the Sultan, should annihilate
    the tyrannical and autocratic

    [p. 10]

    regime of Turkey, “should secure harmony between nationalities, safety for labor, and
    liberty of conscience, of speech and convictions”. Their endeavor was going to be
    “to achieve equality for nationalities and religions before the law”. (From the
    Program of the A. R. Federation, adopted in the General Convention of 1892, Pages 6 and
    9).

    The purpose of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation was defined in the following formula,
    as it is given in the above mentioned pamphlet, page 15,—”The purpose of the A. R.
    Federation is to achieve political and economic freedom in Turkish Armenia, by
    means of rebellion . . . . ”

    It is worthy to note, that the attitude of the Dashnag society towards Armenian
    independence has been rather vague right from the beginning. It did not demand
    independence for Turkish Armenia. “The pioneers of Dashnagzoutune, not only did not
    utter the word Independence in their public speeches but they did not have
    ‘independence’ as a demand”, says M. Varandian, in his “History of the A. R.
    Federation”, page 118. The same Dashnag historian, in order to prove his point,
    quotes from the “Droshak” (The official organ of the Dashnag central Bureau)
    Nov. 5 , 1893, the following lines:

    “We are opposed to those views according to which the independence of a people is an
    absolute condition for the amelioration of its lot”.

    This vagueness and equivocation was designed frorn the beginning, in order to appease the
    ultra radicals and socialists in the ranks of the organization. “Political and
    economic freedom in Turkish Armenia”, was more acceptable to these groups, than
    political independence or autonomy for Armenians in Turkish Armenia.

    This vagueness in the defnition of their purpose, and the dilution of their national
    ideals with international and socialistic tendencies, made it easier for the Dashnag
    leaders,

    [p. 11]

    in later years, to subject the Armenian political demands to dangerous compromises with
    the young Turks. To run with the hare and hunt with the hound, has been the tactics of the
    A. R. Federation.

    The idea or policy of an independent Armenia was forced upon the society, through the turn
    of political everts that resulted from the Great War and the Russian Revolution.

    The consolidation of these various revolutionary societies was engineered by Christopher
    Mikaelian,.Simon Zavarian and Rostom Zorian, three leaders of ability and personal power,
    who, while they lived, contrived to maintain harmony among the diverse and somewhat
    discordant elements that composed the Dashnagtzoutune * ).

    Even though a common purpose—the liberation of the Armenians from Turkish oppression—brought
    together these various groups, divergence of political principles and tendencies were not
    eliminited from amongst them: and this fact, in later years, became the cause of great
    confusion in the program and the policies of the organization. Frorn its very beginning
    the society has lacked consistency of purpose and method, and opportunism and lack of
    common sense have characterized most of its actions.

    ORGANIZATION

    The organization is democratic in form only; its various committees and conventions are
    little more than debating societies and furnishers of money, for the achievement of the
    purposes of the society. The actual direction of affairs from the beginning has rested in
    the hands of affairs from the beginning has rested in the hands of of a secret Bureau,
    which established itself in Geneva, Switz-

    ———-

    * ) The word Dashnagtzoutune is the Armenian equivalent for Federation and
    was adopted for the new society because it designated the alliance of various groups.

    [p. 12]

    erland ruled its adherents with an iron hand and strict discipline. The common
    members are not encouraged to communicate with each other or with Committees about
    matters pertaining to the society. This has reduced criticism to a minimum and
    discouraged independent thinking.

    Article 35 of the By-laws drawn up for the A. R. Federation District of America, and
    published by “Hairenik Press” in Boston, 1910, forbids communication
    between individual members with the following words:

    ” …. it is never permitted to a Dashnagtzagah *) member to send
    circulars to members and committees”.

    On the other hand, the leaders and official bodies or Committees can withhold
    important facts and information from the rank and file , if they choose to do so.

    The organization is rather oligarchical; and its followers have been taught to
    accept, without any discussion, the decrees and orders of the higher ups, Dr. Jean
    Loris-Melikoff, a personal friend of Christopher Mikaelian.and one of the founders
    of the Dashnag society, speaks as follows: —”The truth is that the party was
    ruled by an oligarchy, for whom the particular interests of the party came before
    the interests of the people and the nation”. (La Revolution Russe et les
    Nouvelles Republique Transcaucasiennes, page 84, Liberairie Felix Alcan, Paris,
    1920).

    Section 7 of Article 57 of the By-laws for the American District, printed in 1910 by
    the “Hairenik” in Boston, describes as follows some of the duties of the
    Central Committee of America :—

    “To communicate to Committees, by means of circulars, such news received from
    the fields of activity of our organization, (Turkey, Persia, Caucasus) that have
    nothing to do with conspiracies
    …”

    ————

    *) Dashnagtzagan means a member of Dashnagizoutune. In this
    discusslon the word Dashnag is also used to designate a member of Dashnagizoutune.

    [p. 13]

    Many plots, intrigues, conspiracies and terroristic enterprises are kept secret from
    the members. Many innocent members are made co-partners in plots without being
    apprised of the directing motives or purposes behind them. This privilege of secrecy
    has been often and gravely abused by Dashnag leaders.

    The rank and file have continually been kept under the spell of their invisible
    rulers, who, through sensational though futile acts, managed to keep their own
    prestige high, and their coffers bulging.

    To this day, the Dashnagtzoutune is the meeting place of divergent elements. In its
    “Report on Russian Armenia,” the American Commission under Gen. James G.
    Harbord, which was sent to the Caucasus by the Peace Conference in 1919, speaks as
    follows of the Dashnagtzoutune:—

    “This is really a political society, rather than a party.

    “It contains three clearly defined elements, all of which are strongly socialist.

    “a. The right wing composed of comitadji, (meaning secret revolutionists who
    believe in strong armed methods).

    “b. The centre comprising intellectuals who control both Wings.

    “C. The left wing, which is almost Bolshevist.”

    TERRORISM IN THE EARLY PROGRAM

    Patriotism, and the influence of early leaders maintained loftiness of motives, if
    not prudence in activity, within the party. Gradually however, established
    traditions, and self interest governed the policies of the Dashnagtzoutune. Men of
    smaller intellect and questionable patriotism, and even opportunists, managed to
    place themselves at the helm of the society; and there began a process of
    degeneration; and questionable, and even criminal

    [p. 14]

    methods were resorted to, in order to achieve the purposes ot the party.

    Speaking of the Dashnag Society in the Caucasus, tne report of the American
    Commission under Gen. James G. Harbord declares again:—

    “It is highly organized, has agents everywhere, and still plays a dominant part
    in Armenian National life.

    “The opponents of the Dashnagtzoutune say that, despite its patriotic work, it
    is only a relic of barbarism and

    must be suppressed. “Its adherents maintain that it is a vital organ of
    Armenian life, and that its vicious elements being the inevitable product of former
    conditions, will be eradicated as order is restored.

    “It is probable, that the Dashnagtzoutune still employs terroristic methods,
    and undeniable that it is now a source of danger, owing to its liability to
    precipitate conflicts”.

    This report was submitted to the Peace Conference and to the United States
    Government, in August 1919.

    Terrorism has, from the first, been adopted by the Dashnag Committee of the
    Caucasus, as a policy or a method for achieving its ends. In this they have followed
    the Russian Socialists or Nihilists. Under the heading “Means”, in their
    program adopted in 1982, we read as follows:—

    The Arm. Revolutionary Federation, in order to achieve its purpose through
    rebellion, organizes revolutionary groups. . . .” and these groups are to use
    various means or methods, which are given on pages 17 and 18 of the program.

    [p. 15]

    Method No. 8 is as follows:—

    “To wage fight, and to subject to terrorism the government officials, the
    traitors, the betrayers, the usurers, and the exploiters of all description”.

    Method No. 11 is :—

    “To subject the government institutions to destruction and pillage”.

    Dashnag publications are full of stories of terroristic exploits.

    At first, these terroristic methods were resorted to in order to obtain money for
    the revolutionary movements in the Turkish territory. Says Dr. Jean Loris-Melikoff:
    “They made collections among the bourgeois and the great merchants. At the end,
    when these means were exhausted, they resorted to terrorism, after the teachings of
    the Russian revolutionaries, that ‘the end justifies the means’ . . . (La
    Revolution Russe et les Nouvelles Republiques Transucasiennes”, Page 81).

    In a signed article entitled “Armenia, its History and Customs”, which appeared
    in “Hairenik”, the official mouthpiece of the Dashnag Central Committee in the
    United States, the following is said on this matter.

    “In addition, Turkish oppression was often quickly reduced or eliminated by the
    Dashnag policy of exterminating arbitrary officials. Another effected practice was
    the intimidation of prominent men in order to obtain financial support. Those who
    refused were put on the “spot”. In fact, it was very similar to the
    underground methods of modern racketeering, except that its goal was noble”.
    “Hairenik”, Sept. 16, 1933).

    If we are to believe the late M. Varandian, who was a prominent leader of the
    society belonging to its inner councils, terroristic methods were often used in
    order to collect money from rich Armenians.

     

     

    [p. 16]

    “The first attempt at collecting money by force, was tried in Shousha. In the summer
    of 1902, our leader Christopher was there, with his soldiers. . . . The first blow of the
    “storm” fell upon the well-known millionaire, Isahag Jamharian — . . . the
    “storm” squad arrested him one night and took him to a lonely spot outside the
    city.” They let him free when he promised to pay 30,000 rubles. However, he notified
    the police, and his abductors were arrested. “With his cynical betrayal, says
    Varandian, Jamharian forged his own tragic fate. And a few months after this episode, in
    Moscow, in broad daylight, and in the courtyard of the Armenian church, in the presence of
    a great throng, this traitor paid for his sin; he fell under the blows of a dagger . . .
    .” (“History of the Dashnagtzoutune”, by M. Varandian, Vol. I Page 325,
    326, 327, Paris, 1932).

    Jamharian had committed the sin of defending himself from the arbitrary demands of
    self-appointed and irresponsible saviors of our people, who had gone so far as to abduct
    him and threaten him with violence. He was, therefore, a traitor in the eyes of these
    people. He was still a traitor for the Dashnag historian Varandian, in the year of grace
    1932, and was even denied the right of self defense.

    All those who disagreed with the Dashnag leaders, or against whom the local Dashnak chiefs
    nourished a grudge, were denounced as traitors, and betravers of the cause. Mateos
    Baliozian, a wealthy merchant of Smyrna, was thus denounced, although to this day there is
    no proof at all that he betrayed anyone to the Turkish qovernment, However, according to
    Varandian, he was killed in 1902, by a Dashnag terrorist, Horen Sarkisian or Bedros Azizof
    of Magnisa. Here is how this episode is related by the Dashnag historian: “The two
    spies were being protected morally and materially, by the local Armenian Croesus, Mateos
    Baliozian, who was influential within the government

    [p. 17]

    circles. . . . The organization, naturally, did not retreat and punished the Armenian
    moths. Maksoud and Karekin (alleged spies) were subjected to terrorism. The same lot fell
    also on Baliozian, who continued, stubbornly, to assist the police. His terror was
    organized by Hrach himself (1902), and the terrorist was Bedros Azizof of Magnisa, (
    “History of the Dashnagtzoutune”, Vol, I. Page 450).

    That terroristic methods were also used, in those early days, within the ranks of Dashnag
    leaders for differences of opinion and to satisfy personal grudges, is also admitted, by
    Varandian himself, in his famous “History of the Dashnagtzoutune”, page 86.
    “In the same year 1891 Gerektzian was killed in Erzroum, by the decision of the local
    Central Committee …. His “guilt ” was, that he was against hasty revolutionary
    moves, he preached prudence, he advised that long preparations be made. ‘Whoever is not
    with us, is our enemy’—said the hot headed comrades of Gerektzian. They cast lots, and
    the lot fell on Comrade Aram Aramian who has also killed Comrade Gerektzian.

    “The Central Committee of Dashnagtzoutune condemned this step in 1892, in the
    presence of Aramian, and issued a special bulletin on it”. But the Dashnag Center did
    not punish Aram Aramian for his crime. A verbal reprimand was considered suficient.

    Judging from the contents of the “History of the A. R. Federation”, as written
    by Varandian, the early Dashnag organization has been very prolific in organizing and
    crrrying out terroristic acts. It seems that terrorism against their own co-nationals has
    been a prominent part of the revolutionary activities of the Dashnag leaders of the
    Caucasus. Organized to fight the Turks, these chieftains have been more successful in
    their fight against their

    [p. 18]

    Armenian opponents in Turkey, and the Caucasus, very often defenseless and innocent.
    Varandian exalts the terroristic activities of the A. R. Federation, in his history, pages
    211-213. in the following glowing terms :—

    “Terroristic acts, which, alas, have very often been directed against the
    internal adversaries—against betrayers, against unfaithful spies and against all kinds
    of traitors…. Perhaps there has never been a revolutionary party— not even the Russian
    Narodovoletz, or the Italian Carbonaris— with such rich experiences on the
    road of terroristic acts, as the A. R. Federation, which in its difficult environment, has
    developed the most frenzied types of terrorists, and given hundreds of masters of the
    pistol, the bomb and the dagger, for acts of revenge. “The terror of the
    Dashnagtzoutune, although directed mainly against cowardly Armenians at first, gradually
    was turned against the enemy itself, and we see its hundreds of victims, Turkish, Kurdish,
    Russian, great or small tyrants …. etc.”

    One of the most unfortunate results of these terroristic methods, was the gradual
    development of a class of terrorists, who used their bullet and their dagger
    indiscriminately, both against those who betrayed the cause, and against those who were
    unfortunate enough to make personal enemies of the Dashnag leaders. This class of
    terrorists enjoyed a place of honor within the society.

    A partial list of alleged Armenian victims of Dashnag terrorism is given at the end of
    this discussion, (See Appendix I ).

    [p. 19]

    ACTIVITIES AGAINST TURKEY

    Under the leadership of Sarkis Gougounian, a dare devil student from Moscow, a band of
    some 100 Armenian enthusiasts were organized in Alexandropol, in the summer of 1890,
    crossed the Turkish border sometime in September of that year, and had some encounters
    with the Kurds. However, when the Turkish regulars appeared on the scene, they had to
    retreat. Their retreat into the Caucasus was cut off by the Cossacks. A good many were
    killed, most of them arrested, and Gougounian was exiled into Siberia.

    Thus ended the so-called Gougounian expedition, in which the newly organized
    Dashnagtzoutune had no part. On the contrary, its leaders tried to dissuade Gougounian
    from carrying out his plan. as r rash, premature and harmful move. They believed, at that
    time, that there should be a more careful and general preparation for an uprising against
    Turkey.

    However, they soon discarded this more prudent policy of action, and adopted the methods
    of sensational, sporadic and partisan fights along the borders of Turkish Armenia. This
    method was tried for a few years, but without the desired results. European governments
    did not intervene in favor of the Armenians who as a result of these forays were subjected
    to more systematic anrl bitter persecution by the Turks and the Kurds. The Hunchagist
    party had tried the same method of sensational acts and sporadic fighting in
    Constantinople, Sassoun, Zeitoun and elsewhere, and had failed to bring about European
    intervention. They had given up these methods as futile and harmful. The Dashnag society
    thought it would succeed where others had failed. Therefore it decided to carry the fight
    into

    [p. 20]the Turkish capital, and to attempt a move, that would rattle the Sultan, and would
    cause the European powers to intervene and compel the Turkish government to put into
    force the reforms promised for the Armenian provinces, under Article 61 of the
    Treaty of Berlin. (See appendix III ).

    The Dashnag high command had decided an attack on the Bank Imperial Ottoman.

    Accordingly, one day in August 1896, a group of young men entered the Bank in
    Constantinople, subdued the employes, barricaded themselves in, and threatened to
    blow up the bank with bombs and dynamite, unless the Sultan promised reforms for
    Armenia. The Sultan made no rnove, and represented these revolutionists as brigands.
    Dr. Dr. George Washburn, a famous missionary, goes even so far as to say in a book
    of his, that Abdul Hamid was aware of the plans of the Dashnags, and let them enter
    the bank in order to discredit the Armenian revolution and use it as a pretext for a
    massacre. After waiting in vain for a whole day, and through the intervention of the
    Russian embassy, our heroes were safely escorted out of the bank and placed on board
    a European steamer and saved themselves; while 16,000 Armenians were massacred in
    Constantinople during the following two days by the Turkish rabble and the regulars
    * ).

    However, the Dashnag leaders clung to the idea that sporadic uprisings and partisan
    fights with the Turkish armed forces, were essential to bring about diplomatic
    intervention.

    ————–

    * ) ” . . . . it is certain that the Turkish government knew all
    about it many davs before, even !o the exact time when the bank was to be entered,
    and the Minister of Police had made elaborate arrangements not to arrest these men
    or prevent the attack on the bank, but to facilitate it and make it the occasion of
    a maesacre oI the Armenian population of the city”. (Dr. George Washborn,
    “Fifty years in Constantinople”, page 246).

    [p. 21]

    “The purpose of the Armenian movement, has been, says M. Varandian, the most
    prominent Dashnag ideologist and historian, from the beginning, to organize as far
    as possible a long drawn-out fight against the Ottoman tyranny, to create in the
    country a continuous revolutionary state, always having before our eyes the
    intervention of the third factor . . . . the European factor,” (M. Varandian,
    “History of the Dashnagtzoutune”, page 302).

    They ignored a fourth and most important factor, the people of Turkish Armenia.

    Being all Armenians from the Caucasus, these people never took the trouble of
    inquiring into the actual conditions in Armenia, and consulting the Armenians in
    Turkey. They even refused to co-operate with other secret societies, organized in
    Turkish Armenia, who believed only in methods of self defense against the Turkish
    and Kurdish oppressors, and in long and silent preparation for a general uprising in
    the distant future. They pursued their own disastrous methods.

    Another futile expedition, that took place in the summer of
    1897, and ended in a fiasco, was that of Khanasor, Its net result was disastrous for
    the Armenian population of the district between Van and Persia. Many Armenian
    villages were wiped out as a result of this adventure of the Dashnags, who, for the
    most part, escaped with their own skins intact.

    The Khanasor expedition, so-called, was the result of tlre machinations of the
    Russian authorities, whose purpose was to encourage political unrest and turmoil
    along the eastern borders of Turkey. There is reason to believe, that some of the
    Dashnag leaders of Tiflis, were playing the game of the Russian government. Their
    more prudent leaders, as well as all other Armenian political organizations, opposed
    the undertaking as one that was certain to

    [p. 22]

    bring failure and disaster. However, the central authorities of Tiflis prevailed
    upon local opposition. Enormous amounts of money had been collected from the
    Armenians to organize and equip this expedition; therefore, they had to show
    results. The Russian authorities had to be pleased too.

    The avowed purpose of the expedition of Khanasor, was to punish the Kurdish tribe of
    Mazrik, that had been the scourge of the Armenian population of those districts,
    There were about 250 fighters in the band that attacked the camp of the Mazrik tribe
    in the plain of Khanasor just before daybreak, and set fire to the nearest tents and
    killed a few Kurds. The main body of the Kurds put up a stiff fight, and drove back
    the attackers, who in their confusion fired upon each other.

    The Dashnag band was in danger of being surrounded by the Mazrik fighters, and had
    to retreat to safety, leaving 19 in dead on the battlefield, according to
    “Droshak”, the Dashnag central organ, Nov. 11, 1897.

    The Mazrik escaped punishment, their chief, Sharaf Beg, although declared killed in
    the fight in all Dashnag papers ever since, was still alive twenty years after
    Khanasor; and he took terrible reyenge on the peaceful Armenian peasants.

    To this day, Khanasor is celebrated every year, by the Dashnag society, and the rank
    and file is made to believe that it was a glorious victory; and that the blood
    thirsty Sharaf Beg was killed in the fight.

    The rebellion of the mountain district of Sassoun in 1904, is another chapter in the
    revolutionary activities of the A. R. Federation. Sassoun had alreadv taken up arms
    against the Kurds and the Turkish soldiers in 1894, under the leadership of the
    Hunchagist leaders Mourad and Damadian. This early movement during which the heroic

     

     

    [p. 23]

    mountainers fought bravely, was ruthlessly crushed by the regular army, and many villages
    were distroyed and the people massacred.

    The new rebellion in 1904 was better organized and was led by Antranik, whose homeric
    exploits against the enemy, form some of the most glowing pages of the history of Armenian
    struggle for independence. However, its outcome was not any different than that of the
    earlier rebellion. After a series of long drawn-out fights, during which the peasants and
    their leaders from outside displayed great bravery and inflicted heavy losses on the
    Turkish troops, the rebellion was finally crushed, many mountain villages were destroyed
    and the revolutionists had to retreat to the districts of Moush and Bitlis.

    This second Sassoun episode created a little more noise in the Europern press; a few more
    speeches, supporting the Armenian cause, were delivered fiom the rostrum of some European
    parliaments; some consular aqents were dispatched to the scene of operations in order to
    send firsthand information to their respective governments; and the incident was ended so
    far as European diplomacy was concerned.

    The third factor—European intervention—never displayed any signs of effective action
    to force the Sultan to carry out the stipulations of Article 61 of the treaty of Berlin
    for Armenian Reforms.

    These periodic fights with limited numbers of fighters. and scattered over isolated
    regions. involved great sairifices of human life and money, but were not effective enough
    to wrest the least concessions from the government of the Sultan. It will hardly be an
    exaggeration to say, that all the revolutionary activities of the A. R. Federation out
    together, did not equal, either in magnitude or in actual results, the rebellion of the
    town of Zeitoun in 1895. For

    [p. 24]

    over three months, the inhabitants of this rnountain town defended themselves against a
    regular army of 30,000, under Edhem Pasha, captured a whole Turkish regiment and forced
    the government to come to terms and grant some measure of local autonomy for the district
    of Zeitoun. The Dashnagtzoutune had no part in this memorable fight.

    The attempt on the life of Sultan Abd-ul-Hamid in 1905, constitutes the last episode of
    the revolutionary aitempts of the A. R. Federation in behalf of Turkish Armenia. This was
    another of the spectacular but futile acts of the Dashnagtzoutune. Its success would not
    have helped the Armenian cause; its failure probably saved our people from greater
    misfortunes.

    * * *

    The Armenian struggle for independence was directed against the most ruthless tyranny in
    the world. Obstacles were overwhelming. Neither geography nor friendly diplomacy helped
    our cause. These facts taught a lesson to the early Armenagans * ) and the Hunchagists,
    who, after a few spectacular exploits, gave up the method of armed insurrection with small
    numbers.

    The Dashnagtzoutune would not learn any lessons from the experiences of others. Its
    doctrine was, that liberty is won by bloodshed only, and the more the Sultan is goaded
    into massacring the Armenian people, the stronger will become our claims for autonomy, and
    the greater will become the hope for European intervention.

    As we have already stated, this expected intervention never materialized, and the Sultan
    was left free to deal with tbe Armenians as he saw fit,

    ————–

    * ) Armenagens were the earliest Armenian revolutionary society, formed in
    Van, direcred by local leaders who believed only in patriotism ard not in other isms. They
    preached self defense and tried to prepare the people for an uprising in the future. They
    alterwards joined the Ramgavar party,

    [p. 25]

    Years of futile and wasteful struggle against the Turkish government finally forced tlre
    scholastic leaders of the Dashnagtzoutune, who had directed the struggle from their safe
    refuges of Geneva and Tiftis, to admit their defeat, but not their ignorance.

    “We were defeated, says Mikael Varandian on page 191 of his hodge-podge of a ‘History
    of the Dashnagtzoutune’, and adds immediately, “but the enemy was not victorious
    either”. This last sentence is simply a bravado in keeping with Dashnag mentality.

    Although mostly disastrous in its final outcome., the Armenian revolution produced the
    beneficial impression among the Turks and Kurds, that the long oppressed Armenian infidel
    can also strike back at its tyrants. Some real fighters sprang up from among the people,
    who struck terror into the hearts of the Turks. The prestige of various revolutionary
    societies was built on the personal bravery of these fighting patriots, who, like the
    great Antranik, later symbolized the struggle of the Armenians for independence.

    The Dashnagtzoutune exploited the fame and prestige of Antranik and others, to the fullest
    extent. These heroic figures were represented as the product of the revolutionary school
    of the party.

    Here is what Gen. Antranik has to say about this kind of exploitation by the
    Dashnagtzoutune.

    “They say, that I have been the spoiled child of the Dashnagtzoutune.

    “Fortunately my revolutionary teacher of 1889 was not the Dashnagtzoutune, I can not
    understand what right can a party have to appropriate its followers of the past, when its
    present is completely against its doctrines of the past and the national spirit?

    [p. 26]

    “It would have been a good thing, of course, if the Dashnagtzoutune had had
    well-known and less-known heroes, wlrose teachers had been the intelligentsia belonging to
    itself.

    “For decades it was the people of Sassoun, Moush, Akhlat and the Armenian people in
    general, who have supported me and other soldiers like me; and we have been their soldiers
    only, and not the soldiers of the Dashnagtzoutune or any other party.

    “When these brave soldiers, who sprung up from the bosom of the Armenian people, were
    fighting in the mother country. . . . the Dashnagtzoutune was only waging partisan
    quarrels in its press abroad, and exploiting the names of my inimitable fighting comrades.
    It is hard to understand therefore, whether we, fighters, are the ones who have nourished
    and spoiled the Dashnagtzoutune, or. this latter has spoiled us?

    “Today the Dashnagtzoutune is deprived of the right to speak in the name of those who
    fell like heroes”. (“Antranik Speaks”, pages 4, 5, 6, Paris 1921).

    ADHERENCE TO SOCIALISMWhen the Russian Czar issued a decree in 1903, by which the government was going to
    confiscate the property of the Armenian church. the people rose in one body in
    defense of their rights. The authorities in the Caucasus, in order to weaken the
    Armenian people, incited the Mohammedan Tartars to attack them. Riots and murders
    increased to the proportion of massacres in many cities; while the police and the
    Cossacks turned a deaf ear to the appeals of the Armenians for protection.

    Then the Armenians took up arms and defended themselves very efiectively from this
    double attack. The rev-

    [p. 27]

    olutionary societies, with their organization and their leadership, naturally,
    played an important part in this conllict; and the Dashnagtzoutune won great credit
    and fame for its share in the fight. However, the claims of the Dashnag writers,
    that their own organization and their own partisan chiefs played the leading part in
    these internecine fights seem to be greatly exaggerated. The accounts of these
    clashes, which lasted almost a year and a half ( 1905-1906) and in which the
    Armenians were victorious, come mostly from Dashnag writers, and grossly
    overestimate the importance of the A. R. Federation as a fighting element.

    According to H. Katchaznouni, the A. R. Federation did not take the initiative in
    that national struggle; it rather followed the popular movement. Here is what this
    veteran Dashnag leader, who was also the prime minister of the Armenian Republic
    from 1905-1906, has to say on the subject.

    “. . . . In Transcaucasia, the Dashnagtzoutune has been not so much as a leader
    or initiator in the past. as a follower of those movements, that have grown
    independently of itself. It was thus in 1903 (rebellion and demonstrations on
    account of the confiscation of the property of the church). l t was thus during the
    period of 1905-1906 (bloody Armeno-Tartar conllicts); it was also thus during the
    first great labor movements (1903-1906), when tlie Dashnagtzoutune was being
    governed, in Baku, Tiflis and Batoum, by the policy and mode of action of the
    foreign socialistic parties”. ( “A. R. Federation flas Nothing More to
    Do”, pages 7-8, by Hov. Kachaznouni, Vienna, t923).

    These conflicts and also the first revolutionary movements that broke out in the
    Caucasus after the Russo-Japaneses [sic] War, threw the Armenian people and its
    organizations into close contact with the Russian socialistic parties.

    [p. 28]

    Many Dashnag leaders of the Caucasus had socialistic tendencies already; and thcy
    conceived the bright idea that the open adoption of socialism as a political
    program, would secure the support of Russian and European socialist leaders for the
    Armenian cause. Accordingly, about the year 1906, they adhered to the
    social-revolutionists of Russia. This step meant a deviation from their original
    program of the liberation of Turkish Armenia, and was bitterly opposed by some of
    the most eminent fighters in the ranks of the Dashnagtzoutune, such as Antranig,
    Mourad, Mihran, etc., mostly all Armenians from Turkey.

    These men were pure and simple patriots. They did not give a rap tor socialism or
    other isms. Mihran could not be won over to the viewpoint of the
    intellectuals and the secret Bureau. Therefore, he was assassinated one day.

    In their convention of Vienna, that was held in I907, the Dashnagtzoutune condemned
    Mihran to death.

    Here is what M. Varandian writes about this decision.

    “At last, here is the decision of the meeting about Mihran, which was passed
    unanimously, with one exception:—

    1 “To consider the conduct of Mihran and his accomplices a grave offense
    against the organization and the Turkish-Armenian cause that it defends. On this
    basis, to consider them expelled from the ranks of Dashnagtzoutune.

    2. “To recommend to the proper body, that it subject Mihran and his accomplices
    to the penalty that is foreseen in the by-laws of the organization.

    ” ( Soon the death penalty was carried out ) “. ( M. Varandian, ‘History
    of the Dashnagtzoutune, page 491, Paris, 1932).

    The opposition, however, did not stop there. When in the above mentioned convention,
    which was held in Vienna in 1907, the Dashnags finally adopted and ratified

    [p. 29]

    the program of social-revolution, some of their most eminent fighting leaders,
    Antranik among them, left the party. His prestige among the Dashnag rank and file
    was so great, that the Bureau did not dare to put him on the “spot”, like
    it did Mihran.

    Here is what General Antranik has to say about this convention of Vienna, in his
    booklet, “Antranik Speaks”‘ pages 7-8-9- 10.

    “At the Convention of Vienna, in 1907, the Dashnagtzoutune adopted the
    Caucasian Program, that is to say it renounced its real aim, which was the
    liberation of the Armenian people of Turkey, in order to pursue pan-human purposes.

    “This, to a certain extent, meant the burial of the Turkish-Armenian cause.

    “For three days, during which the Caucasian Program was debated, I opposed it
    with all my soul. Maloumian, who was presiding that day, protested, and declared,
    that I myself and a few others with me, were to blame for the prolongation of the
    convention.

    “Then I answered — Let your blood be on your own heads. Do as you please, but
    don’t close the doors of Russia against us. We have too many enemies already, don’t
    make an enemy of Russia too; and do not furnish any excuse for reducing the
    Armenians of the Caucasus to the condition of the Armenians of Turkey.

    ” . . . . I deemed it useless for me to stay in the Dashnagtzoutune, and I
    wrote my resignation from Varna and sent it to Geneva, so it could be published in
    the’Droshak’.

    “From that day on, as I beheld the doings of the Dashnagtzoutune, I became more
    and more firm, in my convictions that brought about my resignation.

    “Indeed, after that I saw that the Dashnagtzoutune made it a business to
    persecute the Armenian ‘bourgeoisie’.

    [p. 30]

    Presumbly to protect the rights of the workers, it caused strikes in Bakou and
    Batoum. These strikes harmed only the Armenian owners of oil establishments, from
    whom the same society had often begged fot money. Many of them had to close their
    factories; thus making happy the Tartar factory owners. Tens of thousands of
    Armenian laborers were thrown out on the streets, and wandered without work. After
    the ‘Ottoman Constitutional Regime’, the Dashnagtzoutune spread its strikes from
    Constantinople out until it came to the rug factories of Harpert and Sebastia.

    “From that time on, the Dashnagtzoutune remained faithful to its socialistic
    aims. When we had an independent Armenia, they preached socialism, from Karabagh to
    Sarikamish, to the Armenian people, eighty per cent of whom did not know the
    alphabet. They wanted to teach socialism to the Turks and Tartars too: and they
    shouted in their organs “Workers, unite without distinction of race l ”

    Adherence to socialism had other and more grave consequences for the Dashnagtzoutune
    and the Armenian people. At once the Russian government began to persecute the
    Armenian revolutionists, as the allies of the Russian revolutionary societies.

    Formerly the activities of the Dashnagtzoutune lvere tolerated in Caucasian Armenia
    by the authorities, as they were directed against Turkey only. Now the Czar and his
    ministers saw a great danger in their presence on Russian soil. The leaders were
    arrested, exiled and persecuted. The Dashnags, according to their grandiloquence,
    were fighting the powers of both the Sultan and the Czar. But the position of the
    Armenians in the Caucasus became untenablc, and the revolution was deprived of its
    only base where the operations against Turkey could be organized and started. On the
    other hand, European socialism failed

     

     

    [p. 31]

    to come to our help, as European diplomacy had already failed. The net result was a
    tremendous waste of energy and internal dissensions.

    YOUNG TURKS AND THE DASHNAGTZOUTUNE

    The Dashnagtzoutune, while devoted solely to the purpose of Armenian liberation, had
    shunned the overtures of the young Turkish leaders in Europe for their co-operation in
    overthrowing the tyranny of Abdul Hamid. Now that they began to play high politics, they
    came to an understanding with the Turkish Revolutionists. Some of the bases of this
    agreement between the Dashnags and the young Turks, which was drawn up in Paris in 1907,
    were the following :

    1. The abandonment by the Armenians of the demand for the enforcemcnt of 61st Article of
    the Treaty of Berlin *). This meant that the Armenians were not going to demand separate
    reforms for Armenia, but were going to work for a constitutional government for Turkey as
    a whole, and become citizens, with equal rights, of the Ottoman empire.

    2. Rebellion against the Czarist government in the Caucasus; and the liberation of the
    various peoples of the Caucasus-Armenians included—from Russia, under the hegemony of
    Turkey. Dashnagtzoutune was to play a leading part in this movement against Russia.

    3. The curtailing of the privileges enjoyed by the Armenian Patriarchs of Constantinople,
    under age old Firmans of the Sultans, according to which the Armenians were given some
    sort of autonomy in ecclesiastical, educational and purely Armenian community afiairs.
    These

    ———–

    * ) See Appendix IIL

    [p. 32]

    privileges made it possible for Armenian community life to exist under Turkish oppression
    and tyranny.

    After the young Turkish revolution of July 1908, when the Dashnagtzoutune for the first
    time appeared in Turkey openly and as a legal political party, and a constitutional
    government was declared by the young Turks, a few seats were alloted to the Dashnag
    leaders in the Ottoman Parliament. One of the first acts of the Dashnag deputies was their
    agreement to a resolution whereby the Turks proposed the abrogation of the Article 61, of
    the Berlin treaty. This, at once, aroused opposition among the Armenian authorities and
    the people.

    AGAINST THE CHURCH

    The intellectual leaders of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation have never been very
    friendly toward religion in general, and towards the Armenian church in particular. Their
    attitude has been, that the church should confine itself to strictly religious and ritual
    activities only, and should play no other part in the social or community life of the
    Armenian people.

    Such a doctrine is unthinkable even under the free institiutions of advanced countries
    like the United States or England, where the church is always accepted as an active force
    in the social well being of a community. Under governmental regimes that obtained in
    Russia and Turkey, the national and community life of subject peoples was organized around
    their religious institutions; therefore, the application of the radical principles
    advocated by Dashnag leaders, would have been both absurd and disastrous.

    However, as soon as socialism was adopted by the Dashnag leadership as a party program,
    they set out with the zeal of newly created converts to put it into application within the
    Armenian national life.

    [p. 33]

    The Czar of Russia had proclaimed a constitutional form of government for his empire. A
    more liberal atmosphere prevailed in the political life of the Caucasus. Taking advantage
    of this opportunity, His Holiness Khrimian Hairik, who was then Catholicos of all the
    Armenians, ordered an ecclesiastical meeting of the Armenians of Russia, to be held in
    Echmiadzin. The purpose of the convention, as drawn up by His Holiness, was to be to adopt
    measures for improving the Armenian schools, for regulating and increasing the revenues of
    the church; and to draw up a constitution for the administration of church and community
    afiairs that would be more in line with Armenian interests than the Balagenia—a law
    decreed by the Russian government for the administration of Armenian church afiairs.

    The ecclesiastical Assembly met in August 1906 at Echmiadzin, and was solemnly opened by
    His Holiness the Catholicos. The overwhelming majority of the lay delegates being
    Dashnags, these took charge. of the affairs, ignored the ecclesiastical nature of the
    gathering, drowned tle voice of the clerical members, and changed the assembly into a
    political meeting.

    Archbishop Ormanian, in his “Azkabadoum”, speaks of this meeting as follows:

    “Those who attended the gathering, forgot, from the first day, the sphere of
    educational, financial and electoral problems, which had been set for them, and began to
    invade other spheres . . . . The Armenian Church and the clergy were declared to be
    harmful to the Armenian people; antichurch feeling was aroused’; a campaign was declared
    against the ministers of the church.
    Even the authority of the Catholicos was scorned,
    notwithstanding the fact that their existence and activities originated in him.”
    (Ormanian, “Azkabadoum”, pages 5323, 5324, 5325, 5326).

    [p. 34]

    According to the account given of this Ecclesiastical Assembly by M. Varandian, the
    program adopted provided that, “The property belonging to the churches and
    monasteries be turned over to the possession of the people itself; that the Catholicos and
    the ertire clergy have authority to deal only with purely religious, dogmatic and. ritual
    problems and have no more connection with various national institutions and. affairs; that
    these temporal affairs be henceforth governed by temporal bodies elected by popular,
    universal, secret and equal ballot, etc.”
    (“History of the
    Dashnagtzoutune”, by M. Varandian, page 472) .

    “Unfortunately, all this was to remain on paper only”, declares Varandian
    regretfully, for neither Khrimian Hairik, nor the saner minority of the Assembly would
    tolerate this attempt to remake the Armenian church in accordance with the “liberal
    spirit of the Dashnag ideology”. The Catholicos saw nothing but danger in this farce
    of an Assembly, and most probably it was he who invited the police authorities to put a
    stop to it .

    The attempt of the Dashnagtzoutune to dispossess the church of its property and its
    functions, and exploit them for its own purposes was thus frustrated. The church and the
    people had just rescued their sacred rights from the encroachments of the Russian Czar,
    and would not tolerate trespassing by Armenian despoilers.

    The agitation against the church in Turkish Armenia, which was started by the
    Dashnagtzoutune soon after the declaration of Constitutional government in Turkey, was
    simply another phase of the hostile attitude of this society towards church and religion.
    This agitation had for its object, the opening of all the Armenian churches for political
    meetings. The church authorities and the people opposed this agitation most vehemently,
    and there were widespread dissensions and fights in practically every Armenian com-

    [p. 35]munity. This was known as the “Open, Close” controversy, and lasted three
    years.

    In a great many instances, the Dashnag leaders made their henchmen break into the
    churches, throw open the doors, and start their political meetings, using the pulpit
    and the chancel as their platform.

    This dispute was so violent, that there were many instances of riots among the
    disputants, and in one instance, at least, two Armenians who wanted to protect the
    church of Smyrna from being sacrileged, were then and there shot and killed by
    Dashnag terrorists.

    The committee of Union and Progress, Turkish allies of the Dashnagtzoutune who
    controlled the Turkish government, secretly encouraged these internal dissensions;
    and the Dashnag violators of law and order were treated very leniently by the
    Turkish police and in Turkish courts.

    This movement against the church was well supported by an anti-religious propaganda
    which was carried on systematically in the Dashnag daily and periodical
    publications. Being newly converted socialists, they represented everything
    religious and ecclesiastical as reactionary and medieval anachronisms.
    Unfortunately, many were the Armenian youths who followed these teachings; and faith
    in religion, respect for paternal authority and other solid social ideals in the
    hearts of many of the young generation were undermined.

    The anti-religious movement was carried to such extremes, that even the highest
    church dignitaries were treated discourteously by Dashnag leaders.

    I shall cite one glaring example of this disrespect for religion and religious
    authority. The meeting of the Armenian National Council, which was a sort of a
    legislative body, always opened with a prayer by its president, the Patriarch, who
    was always an Archbishop. Custom and

    patriotism perverted

    [p. 36]

    courtesy required the councilmen to stand up during these prayers. In one instance,
    while the Patriarch was reciting the Lords prayer, Mr. Shahrigian, the leader of the
    Dashnag group in the council, and one who was high up in the party, crossed his legs
    and kept his seat, declaring, afterwards, that religion did not mean anything to
    him.

    The opposition of the clergy and people to these designs for using the churches for
    political meetings, sprang first of all from religious principles. The church
    buildings were for worship only. Secondly, the Dashnag leaders, who claimed they had
    no other meeting halls, used these churches, wherever they were able to, for mass
    meetings against the Russidn government, which had at this period (1909-1912)
    unearthed an alleged plot of the Dashnags against the authorities in the Caucasus,
    and had imprisoned many of their leaders. Such a movement against Russia was
    agreeable to the young Turks, but would embarrass His Holiness the Catholicos of
    Etchmiadzin, and would endanger the position of the Armenians in Russia. The
    Patriarchate would not allow the churches to be used for such agitation.

    After throwing the entire Armenian community into dissension and disorder, this
    “Open, Close” controversy ended in the defeat of the Dashnag leadership.

    The Armenians and the Armenian authorities in Turkey, based their opposition to the
    Dashnags principally on the following points :—

    1. Their leaders were Russian-Armenians, and therefore, ignorant of the peculiar
    conditions of Turkey; but they concluded agreements with the Turkish Authorities,
    over the heads of established official bodies.

    2. During the period from 1908-1914 they frustrated the efforts of the other
    Armenian political parties

    [p. 37]

    and the Patriarchate to organize a united front to the Turkish government. They
    would rather ally themselves with the young Turks, than with their own co-nationals
    *). The popular conviction was, that the Deshnag leaders were bought by special
    privileges, seats in the Parliament, and offices.

    3. Their socialistic program and propaganda among the youth and the peasants was
    obnoxious to the Armenians, Who thought such doctrines had no place in a struggle
    for political freedom.

    4. Their anti-religious propaganda and publications, undermined the morals of the
    youth.

    THE WORLD WAR

    When the world war broke out in Europe, the Turks began feverish preparations for
    joining hands with the Germans. In August 1914 the young Turks asked the Dashnag
    Convention, then in session in Erzerum, to carry out their old agreement of 1907,
    and start an uprising among the Armenians of the Caucasus against the Russian
    government. The Dashnagtzoutune refused to do this, and gave assurances that in the
    event of war between Russia and Turkey, they would support Turkey as loyal citizens.

    ————-
    *) In the A. R. Federation, thc Committee of Union and Progress. the
    so-called young Turks, who controlled the Ottoman government at this period, found
    ready and willing tools for their program of weakening the political authority of
    the Armenien Patriarchate. which represented the nation before the Turkish
    govenrment. The young Turks encouraged the Dashnak leaders in their attempts to
    reorganize the Patriarchate and other ecclesiastical institutions depending on it,
    in accordance wirh rhe “liberal spirit of the Dashnag ideology.” being
    sure that their euccess would mean the weakening of the Armenian community
    throughout Tukey. Even after rhe Adana rnassacres of 1909, where 20,000 Armenians
    were killed, the Dashnaqrzoutune supported the young Turkish viewpoinl. and weakened
    the position of lhe Patrriarchate that demanded swift and drastic punishment for the
    instigators of that great crime.

    [p. 38]

    On the other hand, they could not be held responsible for the Russian-Armenians.

    The Turks were not satisfed. They suspected them of duplicity. This perhaps was not
    true, because the answer given the Turks was based on a resolution adopted by the
    convention. The fact remains, however, that the leaders of the Turkish-Armenian
    section of the Dashnagtzoutune did not carry out their promise of loyalty to the
    Turkish cause when the Turks entered the war. The Dashnagtzoutune in the Caucasus
    had the upper hand. They were swayed in their actions by the interests of the
    Russian government and disregarded, entirely, the political dangers that the war had
    created for the Armenians in Turkey. Prudence was thrown to the winds; even the
    decision of their own convention of Erzurum was forgotten and a call was sent for
    Armenian volunteers to fight the Turks on the Caucasus front.

    Thousands of Armenians from all over the world, flocked to the standards of such
    famous fighters as Antranik, Kery, Dro, etc. The Armenian volunteer regimen rendered
    valuable services to the Russian Army in the years of 1914-15-16. However, their
    deeds of heroism and the blood they shed in the conquest of Turkish Armenia by
    Russia, did not help the Armenian cause. The Dashag leaders declared, that the
    Russian government had promised freedom for Armenia. There was no foundation to this
    : and the deception was exposed finally. But thousands of Armenians had already
    answered the false call, and incidentally, millions were poured into the coffers of
    the Dashnag “National Bureau”.

    On the other hand, the methods used by the Dashnagtzoutune in recruiting these
    regiments were so open and flagrant, that it could not escape the attention of the
    Turkish authorities, who were looking for an excuse to carry

    [p. 39]

    out their program of exterminating the Christian population which they had adopted
    as early as 1911.

    Many Armenians believe, that the fate of two millions of their co-nationals in
    Turkey might not have proved so disastrous, if more prudence had been used by the
    Dashnag leaders during the war. In one instance, one Dashnag leader, Armen Garo, who
    was also a member of the Turkish Parliament, had fled to the Caucasus and had taken
    active part in the organization of volunteer regiments to fight the Turks. His
    picture, in uniform, was widely circulated in the Dashnag papers, and it was used by
    Talat Pasha, the arch assassin of the Armenians, as an excuse for his policy of
    extermination *).

    The fact remains that the real representatives of the Armenians in Turkey, the
    Patriarchate and its organs, were never consulted by the Caucasian leaders of the
    Dashnagtzoutune in adopting their policies with regard to the Armenian people; yet,
    the disastrous consequences of these policies were suffered by the Armenians in
    Turkey.

    THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION AND THE ARMENIAN EFFORTS AT DEFENSE

    The Russians did not liberate the conquered provinces of Armenia; and after the
    revolution, their army abandoned the front, and left it defenseless against the Turks. The
    Nationalistic elements of the Dashnags in the Caucasus, along with the National Council of
    the Western or Turkish Ar-

    —-

    * ) When the deportations and exile of Armenian leaders began in the
    surnmer of 1915. an Armenian lady, the wife of another Armenian deputy in the Ottoman
    Parliament, had gone to plead with Talat Pasha, asking the [?] of her husband from exile
    and probable death. During the interview, Talat Pasha produced a copy of the Dashnag paper
    “Horizon” in which Armen Garo’s picture in the uniform of a volunteer was published,
    and, pointing to the picture, said, “Madam, look at our mebous (deputy)”. Armen
    Garo, incidentally, was one of the “heroes” of the Bank Ottoman episode of 1896.

    [p. 40]

    menians who had fled across the Russian border, tried to raise an army corps under the
    leadership of Gen. Antranik and the supreme command of Gen. Nazarbekoff, an old Armenian
    veteran of the Russian army.

    The boishevistic branch of the Dashnags, led by such leaders as Chamalian and Vratzian,
    who even up to this date are in the secret Dashnag Bureau in Paris, opposed the
    introduction of capital punishment as a disciplinary measure into this new army. They
    wanted regimental councils or “proletarian discipline”. Much valuable time was wasted
    in this way. On the other hand, some Dashnag leaders did everything within their power to
    frustrate Antranik’s efforts in Erzerum to organize a defense against Vehib Pasha’s
    army. Antranik had opposed the corrupt methods and policies of the Dashnagtzoutune,
    therefore he had to be punished somehow. That punishment cost the Armenians the
    strongholds of Erzerum, Kars and Alexandropol, and the lives of multitudes.

    THE REPUBLIC

    By a curious twist of Turkish and German diplomacy, the Armenians were forced to declare
    the independence of Russian Armenia, which was recognized by the Turks in June 1918, by
    the Treaty of Batoum. Turkish defeats at Karakilisa and Sardarabad, and the stiffening
    resistance of the Armenians were important factors in this recognition; but the main
    reason was, that the Turks wanted to separate Armenia from Russia and deal with it at
    their pleasure at a more convenient time. Secondly, they did not want an enemy army in
    their rear during their advance towards Bakou and the rich oil fields.

    The Dashnag party found itself in the saddle. A ministry and parliament were formed, in
    which the Dashnags were the overwhelming majority. However, being

    [p. 41]

    long used to underhanded and violent methods as a revolutionary party, they failed to show
    any ability for governing and statesmanship. The ministry and the Parliament were often
    overruled by the secret and powerful Dashnag Bureau; and the agencies of law and order
    were often flouted by Dashnag Mauserists *), who had been thus far petted and pampered by
    the society for secret terroristic purposes, and could not be controlled now. They
    tyrannized the people and defied the government.

    Speaking of the policies of the Armenian government, the report of Gen. Harbord’s
    Commission declares as follows :—

    “The policy however, is unfortunately affected by Dashnagtzoutune methods, which are
    always liable to precipitate trouble”.

    H. Kachaznouni, the former prime minister of the Armenian Republic, decries the methods of
    his own party in the following words :— “Armenia was a democratic republic . . . .
    This was the form. But reality was otherwise. In practice, our party endeavored to control
    both the legislative body and the

    government. “There was created an intolerable duality of authority; on the surface it
    was the Parliament and the government, while in secret, it was the party and its organs.

    ” . . . This state of affairs made very difficult the work of forming a serious and
    sincere coalition. Actually, te alien elements who entered the coalition were forced to
    pursue a policy which was not their own, since it was being developed and planned outside
    of the government and by party committees, to which they could not have access and
    participation.

    ———-

    * ) The neme Mauserist is from tlhe maurer pistols wth which these
    henchrnen of the Dashnag leaders were usually armed.

    [p. 42]

    “In Armenia there was no Parliament; it was an empty form without content.

    “The problems of state were being discussed and solved behind closed doors, in the rooms
    of the Dashnag faction, and then declared from the rostrum of the parliament. In reality,
    there was not even a parliamentary faction, because this latter was under the very strict
    supervision of the Dashnag Bureau, and was obliged to carry out its orders. There was not
    a government either. This also, was ruled by the Bureau; it was a kind of executive body
    for the Bureau in the state. This was the Bolshevistic system. But what the Bolshevists
    are doing openly and consistently, we were attempting to veil under democratic forms.” (“Dashnagtzoutune
    Has Nothing More to Do”, by H. Kachaznouni, pages 31-32 and 38, Vienna, 1923).

    * * *

    Internal and external troubles were not long in following.

    In internal affairs, the Dashnag government first all failed to establish peace and a
    .minimum of law and order within the country. Brigandage and oppression were fre quent,
    and in many cases the arbitrary acts of the underli of the Dashnag chiefs precipitated
    trouble.

    Secondly the socialistic legislation, passed by the Parliament, tended to retard the work
    of economic reconstruction of the country, by creating a large bureaucracy and supporting
    them at the expense of the peasants. For example, the farm crops were declared government
    monopolies and forcibly bought from the peasants at nominal prices and sold abroad by
    government agents who also collected the commission. The cotton crop was thus taken over
    by th ministry of agriculture, and sold in Batoum in 1919 by Sarkis Araradian, the then
    minister of finance, who at the same time collected his commission.

    [p. 43]

    “Among the administrative and legislative enterprises, says A. Khatisian, prime minister
    of Armenia, 1919-1920, we might mention the declaration of the agrarian laws, by which,
    land in Armenia was nationalized and given to the workers”. (“The Origin and
    Development of the Armenian Republic”, by A. Khatisian, page 115, Athens, 1930).

    In a proclamation of May 29, 1919, the Dashnag Bureau, which was the real government,
    declared, that the

    “Dashnagtzouiune, after realizing its political ideal, the establishment of a Democratic
    republic, and being true to its fundamental doctrine (socialism), will steer our ship
    consistently and with determination, through the channel of social reforms, to that haven
    of social justice, towards which the workers of all the nations are bound, and where the
    workers of Armenia, without distinction of race or creed, will find the realization of the
    ideals of the entire humanity.” Accordingly the people were invited by the Dashnag
    press, to rise and take possession by force of individually owned lands, and the property
    and lands belonging to the churches.

    Third—the government failed to win the co-operation other political parties.

    Fourth—it could not maintain the dignity of the government against foreign
    representatives. A mere British general in Erivan dictated to the prime minister in a way
    that would be considered most insulting.

    Fifth—It failed to organize the defenses of the country properly, because the trained
    and professional officers of the general staff were overruled by Dashnag chieftainswho
    knew little or nothing about military science.

    Externally.—

    1. The Dashnag government waged three wars in two years and a half. The war on Georgia, in
    Dec. 1918,

    [p. 44]

    lasted only three weeks but caused untold calamity to Armenia. The war with Azerbaijan
    over Karabagh ended disastrously for the Armenians. Finally came the war with Turkey in
    the fall of 1920, which almost put an end to the republic and threatened the Armenian
    remnant with extermination. At least two of these wars were avoidable.

    The war with Georgia, waged over the question of the district of Lory, was precipitated by
    certain Dashnag partisan leaders, over whom the government had no control, and by the
    provocative acts of Russian officers in the Armenian army.

    “It is not improbable, says H. Kachaznouni, that these (meaning the Russian officers)
    were inciting our military circles against Georgia, and creating a hostile atmosphere
    which was very favorable for beginning military operations.

    “We had barely had an existence of 4 or 5 months as a state, and already we were engaged
    in war; while the country had thousands of ills that needed attention. And we waged war
    against a neighbor with whom we had the greatest need of allying ourselves closely. Wasn’t
    Georgia our only avenue for keeping in touch with the civilized world? . . . .
    Independently of the attitude of Georgia, which was doubtless to be condemned, no little
    part has been played by our own incapacity, our own lack ot experience in political life,
    and our own unpreparedness conducting the life of a state.” (“Dashnagtzoutune Has
    Nothing More to Do”, by H. Kachaznouni, pages 34, 35.)

    The war with Turkey was indirectly the outcome of the Act of May 28, 1919, by which the
    government of the Armenian Republic, claimed possession of the provinces of Western or
    Turkish Armenia. If we remember that the existing Republic was recognized by the Turks
    under the treaty of Batoum, in which the Russian-Armenian envoys

    [p. 45]

    renounced all territorial claims over Western Armenia, we can readily comprehend why the
    Turks regarded the Act of May 28, 1919, as a provocation for war, and attacked the
    Armenian Republic as soon as they were ready.

    On the other hand, the Armenian government overestimated its own strength, and created an
    immediate occasion for conflict by occupying the district of Olti.

    We are again going to quote from Kachaznouni, the one time prime minister of Armenia, in
    order to show, that the Dashnag government failed to take measures to avoid this
    disastrous war. “It is an irrefutable fact, says Kachaznouni, a flagrant fact, that we
    have not done everything that we should have done—it was our duty to do—in order to
    avoid war.

    “And we have not done everything for the simple but unpardonable reason, that we were
    ignorant of the real strength of the Turks, and too sure of our own strength. There lies
    the fundamental mistake. We were not afraid of war, because we were sure of being
    victorious. With the carelessness of inexperienced and ignorant men, we were not aware of
    the forces that the Turks had organized on our borders, and so we were not cautious. On
    the contrary, the hasty occupation of Olti was the gauntlet which we threw down, as if
    intentionally, to the Turks; as though we ourselves were desirous of war and went after
    it.” (“Dashnagtzoutune Has Nothing More to Do”, by Kachaznouni, page 41)

    2. The arrogant attitude of the Armenian government towards Soviet Russia during the
    critical year of 1920, deprived the small and weak republic of a strong and neutral ally.

     

    [p. 46]

    A BODY BLOW DEALT TO THE ARMENIAN CAUSE

    The so-called “Armenian Cause”, was centered on the issue of reforms for the
    Armenian provinces in Turkey; in other words, it was a demand on the part of the
    Western Armenians that they be protected from oppression and be given some measure
    of limited autonomy. This demand of the Armenians was recognized internationally by
    the 61st Article of the treaty of Berlin, which the great powers and Turkey had
    signed in 1878, after the Russo-Turkish war *). Internationally, therefore, the
    Armenian Cause, was the cause of the liberation of the Armenians of Turkey.

    During the world war, the Armenian Cause was represented before the allied powers,
    by a National Delegation, representing the Western Armenians only, who spoke for
    their cause only.

    This delegation, headed by Boghos Noobar Pasha, was recognized by the allies, and
    concluded formal agreements with them, according to which the Armenians were to have
    autonomy in Cilicia, under the protection of France. It was under these agreements,
    that the Armenian regiments fought for France in the Syrian campaign during 1917 and
    1918. The final defeat of the Turks raised Armenian hopes for a free and autonomous
    existence in the greater part of Western Armenia, which was now abandoned by the
    Russian army.

    The appearance, on the diplomatic scene, of the representatives of the newly formed
    Armenian Republic in the Caucasus, complicated matters at once.

    —————-

    * ) See Appendix III.

    [p. 47]

    The Dashnag delegation led by A. Aharonian, instead of co-operating with the
    National Delegation in the work of achieving the freedom of Western Armenia, started
    right away to lay plans for the removal of the National Delegation. The
    Dashnagtzoutune could not tolerate the dominance of any other authority in Armenian
    life, but its own. They had repeatedly sacrificed the interests and jeopardized the
    physical existence of the Western Armenians, in order to follow the policies and
    views of their leaders from the Caucasus. They would stop at nothing now in order to
    discredit the National Delegation, which enjoyed the confidence of all the Western
    Armenians, and to take into their own hands the direction of the Armenian Cause
    before the Peace Conference.

    Accordingly, on May 28, 1919, the government of Erivan, came out with a proclamation
    by which it declared the Armenian Provinces of Turkey—which the ‘Western
    Armenians claimed from the allies—united with the existing republic. This
    proclamation is what is known as the Act of May 28. It was actually a usurpation of
    authority by a government which owed its existence to the incident of the Russian
    Revolution, which did not represent the Turkish Armenians, and which had not even
    been authorized by its own parliament for this disastrous act.
    The whole thing
    was designed in Paris, plotted in the Dashnag Bureau at Erivan, and foisted upon the
    public.

    The immediate result of this act was the flaring up of an internal conflict among
    the Armenians, which made it impossible for the political factions to present a
    united front to the allies in the peace conference, which they had done up till
    then. The Social Democrats and the Peoples party withdrew from the government and
    the parliament of the republic, protesting that the government had no

    [p. 48]

    authority for such an unlawful act. This weakened the government even on its own
    home front.

    According to Kachaznouni, the Act of May 28 aimed to put the National Delegation out
    of existence. This did not materialize. While on the other hand, the intolerance of
    the rulers at Erivan, made impossible the formation of a coalition government,
    composed of both Eastern and Western Armenians.

    On the diplomatic front, the Act of May 28 created confusion both among our
    representatives and in the minds of the allied powers. The Armenian question was at
    first the problem of the liberation of Turkish Armenia, which the allies had
    promised and for which the efforts of the Western Armenians had created the basis.
    Now, the Armenian question was something else. Accordingly, the allied powers saw in
    this Act of May 28, an easy way out of a difficult problem. Instead of liberating
    Western Armenia, and organizing it into a seperate state, they decided to add some
    of the provinces of Turkish Armenia to the existing Republic. This was consummated
    in the Sèvres treaty *). However, they also attached a joker; that the final
    solution of the entire problem depended upon the course of the Russian revolution.

    The cause of the freedom of Western Armenia was thus killed by Dashnag intolerance
    and intrigue. The treaty of Sèvres which recognized Armenia, at the time, denied
    freedom to Western Armenia. It was by the representatives of the Republic at Erivan,
    on Aug. 10, 1920. The same men were to repudiate the Sèvres treaty and the claims
    of Armenians in Turkey by signing the treaty of Alexandropol on Dec. 2, 1920.

    —————-

    * ) See Appendix IV.

    [p. 49]

    DISASTER

    The Act of May 28, 1919, which claimed Turkish Armenia for the newly formed Armenian
    Republic, that was recognized by the Turks under the treaty of Batoum, (June 4,
    1918), prepared grounds for the attack of Mustafa Kemal on Armenia. As soon as the
    treaty of Sèvres was signed in Paris, the Turks began their attack. The Armenians
    were without allies in the Caucasus. The European allies were too far distant to
    give them aid. The country was not unified internally, and the army was demoralized
    by Dashnag military methods. The Armenian forces failed to make an effective stand
    before the seasoned Turkish troops. The key fortress of Kars was surrendered; and
    the Turks advanced as far as Alexandropol, where on Dec. 2, 1920, the Dashnag
    government, represented by a delegation headed by A. Katissian, signed a treaty that
    virtually ended the independence of Armenia, and put the fate of the Armenian
    remnant in the hands of Turkish Pashas. (The Treaty of Alexandropol is given at the
    end of this discussion, Appendix IV).

    A timely intervention of Soviet Russia saved the Armenians. Concerning this
    Bolshevik intervention H. Kachaznouni declares:—

    “The Bolsheviks entered Armenia without meeting any resistance. This Was the
    decision of our Party ……..

    “There were two reasons for acting this way, First, we could not resist it if we
    wanted to Second, we hoped that the Soviet authorities, backed by Russia, would be
    able to introduce some order in the state-a thing which we, all alone, had failed to
    do, and it was very plain already that we would not be able to do”

    The Dashnags were driven out of authority in the newly formed Soviet Armenian
    Republic.

    [p. 50]

    AFTER THE DISASTER

    The Dashnag leaders, however, could not reconcile themselves with the idea of being
    out of power. Especially, they were deprived of a sure means of livelihood and were
    utterly discredited before the Armenian public. Being of Bolshevistic tendencies,
    some of them, such as S. Vratzian, the present head of the invisible Bureau in
    Europe and a former editor of the Boston “Hairenik”, were allowed by the
    Bolshevik Armenian leaders to stay in Armenia.

    Two months and a half elapsed since the fall of the Dashnag government, when on Feb.
    i8, 1921, a serious rebellion under the leadership of Vratzian broke out in Armenia
    against the Bolshevik government.

    The Bolshevik forces were temporarily driven out of Armenia, but Vratzian’s
    government was not sure of its own ability to hold out against them. They sought
    military assistance from the Turks by invoking the infamous treaty signed at
    Alexandropol, article 7 of which provided, that “whenever the Armenian government
    so desires, the Great National Assembly of Turkey undertakes to give armed
    assistance to Armenia, against internal and external dangers.” The reentry of a
    Turkish army into Armenia would have meant additional destruction and disaster for
    this much harassed land. However, the Dashnag leaders seemed to prefer Turkish
    rather than Russian protectorate over what was left of the Armenian Republic. So, on
    March 18, 1921, Mr. Vratzian sent to Angora a formal appeal in which Armenia
    expressed the hope that “during her fight she would receive help from her
    neighbors; and in the first instance, the interests of the Turkish people would also
    require that Armenia should issue victorious from this fight and remain independent.”
    Then the Turkish government was asked to let the Armenian government

    [p. 51]

    know, whether it “finds it possible to send military aid to Armenia; and if able
    to do so, to what extent and when?

    “In making this appeal, the Armenian Government relies on the friendly relations
    that have been established under the treaty of Alexandropol, and which have been
    disturbed during the bolshevik rule.” (The complete text of this appeal by
    Vratzian is given in Appendix V.)

    Fortunately for the Armenian remnant, the awe of the rising power of the Soviet
    Union kept the Turkish army out of Armenia.*)

    There was much bloodshed, until the Dashnags were again defeated by the Bolshevists,
    and driven out of the country. This civil war lasted almost three months, and cost
    Armenia the lives of tens of thousands.

    ACTIVITIES IN EXILE

    The Dashnag leaders and former ministers came out now and declared that they had
    decided to follow a policy of loyal opposition, toward Soviet Armenia.
    However, they secretly fomented conspiracies against her. With an amazing
    flexibility of policy and conscience, they extended friendly hands to their former
    foes; the Mousavat party of the Azerbaijan Tartars, and the Mensheviks of Georgia.

    ————-

    *) This appeal of Vratzian as the president of the newly formed
    Armenlan government, was virtually the ratification of the treaty of Alexandropol,
    by which the Dashnag leaders declared to the whole world that Armenia has renounced
    all her demands on Turkey and has no more cause of dispute. The Turks utilized the
    above mentioned treaty and this last appeal of Vratzian as powerful weapons in the
    conference of the great powers at London, in 1921, and again in the Lausanne
    conference in 1923, against the demands of the Armenians for a free national status
    on the soil of Turkish Armenia. They claimed that they had settled all disputes with
    Armenia, by the treaty of Alexandropol and for them the Armenian question did not
    exiat any more. Thus was consummated the burial of the Armenian question, which was
    already killed by the representatives of the Dashnagtzoutune when they signed the
    treaty of Alexandropol on December 2, 1920. The organization that set out to free
    Turkish Armenia, finished by first repudiating, then by Interring that same cause.

    [p. 51]

    These societies were similarly exiled from their respective countries by the advent
    of the Bolsheviks. In 1922 there was secretly concluded what is now known as the “Promethean”
    alliance between the Dashnags, the Tartars, the Georgians and the representatives of
    Daghestan Mohammedans. Its purpose was to organize a concerted rebellion in
    Transcaucasia against the Soviet Republics. Attempts to this effect were suppressed
    rigorously; but the secret agreement is still in force.

    Failing in this, the Dashnags tried to consolidate all the Armenian political and
    other organizations abroad, with the idea of creating a sort of governmenl
    without territory,
    the alleged purpose of which was to coordinate national and
    cultural activities of all the Armenian communities in different countries. The real
    motive behind this move was to use the united public opinion and the material
    resources of all the Armenians abroad, against Soviet Armenia.

    This policy was vigorously opposed and frustrated by the Armenian Democratic Liberal
    party, which, although hostile to the principles of socialism or Bolshevism,
    championed, however, the cause of Soviet Armenia as the only political hope for the
    nation.

    The Dashnagtzoutune tried next to cooperate with the Kurdish leaders in their
    rebellion against Turkey. They made their followers believe, that in case of success
    the Kurds were going to recognize Armenian rigths over the territory of Turkish
    Armenia. There was no basis for such belief, as the Kurds claimed the same territory
    as Part of their national program.

    The Dashnagtzoutune muleted its credulous followers of thousands of dollars to
    support the Kurdish cause. The Kurds were finally defeated in 1928, Net result:—much
    needed propaganda for the Dashnagtzoutune, waste of the hard earned money of the
    Armenian workers, and more

    [p. 53]

    oppressive measures by the Turkish government in dealing with the Armenian remnants
    in Turkey.

    However, they sought other fields of activity, and finally managed to break up the
    unity of some of the cornpatriotic societies. These societies were formed in various
    lands by Armenians coming from the same home town in their old country. They tried
    to raise money, so as to rescue their refugee compatriots, send them into Soviet
    Armenia, and establish them in towns named after their old homes. These towns, which
    have been built in Armenia by these same compatriotic societies, are now growing and
    developing through the co-operation of the Armenian government. Some of these
    societies are now on the verge of disruption, however, on account of the opposition
    of their Dashnag members.

    On all these various fronts the Dashnags met determined oppoistion from other
    political parties, from organizations devoted to the work of Armenian reconstruction
    and from the people in general. Their most serious mistake has been a campaign of
    opposition, bordering on enmity which they have been waging against Soviet Armenia.
    This propaganda however, failed to dampen the patriotic ardor of the Armenians of
    the diaspora, and could not put a stop to their efforts at repatriating the refugees
    scattered in Greece, Syria, France and the Balkans.

    DISSASTISFACTION WITHIN THE RANKS

    Dissatisfaction against this disastrous leadership began within the ranks of the
    Dashnagtzoutune right after the signing of the Alexandropol treaty in December 1920.
    For a while it was in secret. Soon it came out into the open.

    Many leading Dashnags, who had always believed in socialism or bolshevism, demanded
    that their party stop its opposition to Soviet Armenia, liquidate itself, and join
    the communist party. Being refused in this, they severed

     

     

    [p. 54]

    their connections and went over, in groups, to join the communists, as there was hardly
    any difierence in their ideology. These were branded as traitors by the leaders, who were
    able to maintain the party intact, thanks to their financial resources.

    This process of disinteglation was accelerated by the famous booklet of Hovhanes
    Kachaznouni, a life long Dashnag and one time prime minister of the Armenian Government,
    entitled, “Dashnagtzoutune Has Nothing More to Do.”

    After publishing his booklet, in which he tried to prove, that Dashnagtzoutune has no more
    ground for existence, and advising it to disband and support Armenia, Kachaznouni went
    over to Erivan and tendered his services to the Armenian government. His example was
    followed by many others, who were all “traitors”, of course, for the Dashnag
    high comrnand.

    Soon it dawned on the more nationalistic elements in the rank and file of the party, that
    the present Armenia was really the beginning of a political future for the Armenian
    people; and they put a demand that the party stop its enmity to Soviet Armenia.

    Convention after convention failed to satisfy this demand and finally many groups left the
    party and organized separately or joined the other parties friendly to Armenia. The most
    serious schism came two years ago, when almost the entire Dashnag organization in France
    came out openly against the policies of the Central Bureau.

    These dissenting groups are mostly Western Armenians or Armenians from Turkey, rvho
    realized, finally, the betrayal of the Cause of Western Armenia by their leaders from the
    Caucasus, and saw the political blind alley into which they were being led by these
    unscrupulous intriguers, at the present time.

    [p. 55]

    The patent criticisms leveled by the Dashnagtzoutune at the present Soviet Armenia is
    that, it is not independent, and it is a communistic and not a national government. These
    criticisms have no ground to stand upon. The Dashnags themselves, while they were at the
    helm, tried to place Armenia under the protection of some great Power —the United States
    for one—through the League of Nations. The mandate of any great Power, if it had
    materialized, would have meant a limitation of Armenian independence.

    Armenia has now secured its political existence, not by accepting the mandate of a great
    Power, but by joining hands, as one of the federated republics, with the great
    commonwealth of nations known as the Soviet Union. Given the geographical, political and
    economic situation of Soviet Armenia, the severance of its federal ties from the Soviet
    Union, would mean nothing but ruination. As to the communistic form of the government, it
    is perfectly in line with the socialistic program of the Dashnagtzoutune.

    If the Dashnags were sincere patriots, they would ardently support the present political
    union of Armenia with Moscow. On the other hand, if they were sincere adherents of
    socialism, they would not oppose the application of socialism in Armenia now. They are
    neither. Their leaders are simply unprincipled opportunists, who lead their followers into
    a blind alley for their own selfish material interests.

    [p. 56]

    What they condemn now, was in their program once. Here is what we read in the Dashnag
    program published in Boston, by the Hairenik Press, in 1911.

    Under the heading “Political Demands”, we read:—

    “Led by socialistic principles, striving to attain our purpose not by political
    separation, but by reorganization of the body politic on federal foundations, and taking
    into ~ consideration the real and ripened needs of the territory we live in, the party
    proposes the following demands.”

    For Transcaucasia, these demands are as follows :—

    1. “The democratic republic of Transcaucasia shall form an integral part of the
    federated republic of Russia, united to it in matters of self-defense, monetary system,
    customs and foreign policy.

    2. “In all internal affairs, the Trariscaucasian Republic shall be independent, having
    its central parliament, elected by general, equal, direct, secret and proportional
    balloting. Every Transcaucasian, who is over 20 years old, shall have the right to vote,
    irrespective of sex.

    3. “Transcaucasia shall send its representatives to the federal Parliament of Russia,
    elected in the same manner.

    4. “The Transcaucasian Republic shall be divided into cantons, enjoying the widest
    self-rule, The communities likewise shall have self-rule in purely communal aftairs.

    5. “In deciding the boundaries of the cantons, the geographical and cultural
    characteristics of the population shall be taken into consideration, in order to form as
    homogenous units as possible.

    6. “All the legislative, judicial and executive bodies as well as the oficials shall
    be elected by the people, according to the above mentioned system.

    [p. 57]

    7. “Direct legislation, and the rights of referendum and initiative.”

    Even a casual comparison of the above articles of the Dashnag program with the present
    reality of Armenia, will make it clear, that these demands of the A. R. Federation are
    more than fulfilled. While the very name of Armenia is eliminated from the above demands,
    it forms today not a canton of Transcaucasia, but one of the federated republics of
    Transcaucasia, and is united to the central Union of the Soviets, and enjoys freedom for
    cultivating its own national life and culture.

    ATTEMPT TO CONTROL THE CHURCH

    Having failed in all their previous attempts to organize the Armenian diaspora into a
    unified body which they could use as a weapon against the Soviet Armenian government, the
    Dashnag high command decided to try another strategy.

    For thirty years previously they had preached against church and religion. Now, all of a
    sudden, they discovered that they believed in religion and in the Armenian Apostolic
    church, as a bulwark of Armenian nationalism.

    The church was being persecuted by the Soviet regime. Echmiadzin is robbed of its lands
    and of its means of support. His Holiness the Catholicos is a prisoner in the ancient seat
    of the Armenian church and is constantly being hounded by the Cheka. Therefore, it will be
    a good thing for the Armenians to move the Holy See to some place outside of Soviet
    Armenia. After this was achieved, the Dashnag high command thought, it would be easy to
    use the moral prestige of the Holy See, to discredit the Soviet Armenian leaders in the
    eyes of the people.

    At one time in 1930, events seemed to play into their hands. His Holiness, Kevork V, died
    during that year.

    [p. 58]

    Dashnagtzoutunc came out openly then and declared that the Soviet Armenian government was
    not going to permit the meeting of a Church Council at Echmiadzin for the election of a
    successor; or, if it did, it was going to dictate the election, as Catholicos, of a
    churchman who was already a tool of the Soviet secret police.

    Both these prophecies failed. The Armenian government allowed the Church Council, with
    delegartes fiom all over the world, laymen, and churchmen, to convene at Echmiadzin in
    November, 1932. The new successor to the throne of St. Gregory the Illuminator who was
    elected, His Holiness Catholicos Khoren, could not be accused bv the Dashnagtzoutune as a
    tool in the hands of the Cheka.

    However, they floated a new story; that the Soviets allowed the election of a man like
    Catholicos Khoren, because they knew that he enjoyed the confidence of the Armenian people
    abroad; and therefore, it would be easier for them to mislead them through him. This being
    the case, the churches and churchmen would not be committing an offense, if they simply
    disregarded the decrees of the Holy See.

    Almost from the first day of his landing in the United States, His Eminence the late
    Archbishop Leon Tourian had to fight these attempts to belittle the authority of the
    Catholicos, and the underhanded propaganda for moving tlre Holy See from Echmiadzin.

    Church authorities who opposed the Dashnag designs and methods rvere everywhere denounced
    and subjected to indignities. They were represented as the tools of the Soviet secret
    police, who fomented conspiracies against the national aspirations of the Armenians and
    against the Dashnags. These churchmen were declared to be the allies of communists. At the
    present time, there is hardly any Prelate of the Armenian church, who

    [p. 59]

    has not fallen under this accusation, and who has not been subjected to persecution and
    calumny. A partial list of these churchmen is to be found at the end of this discussion
    (see Appendix II ) .

    I shall mention only one notorious example of Dashnag insolence in dealing with church
    authorities who fail to please them. Patriarch Sahag of the Armenians in Syria, was
    bitterly denounced by Housaper, the Dashnag official organ of Cairo, Egypt, because of a
    recent encyclical in which His Holiness exhorted his flock to refrain from acts of
    violence and to cultivate brotherly love. The occasion for this pastoral letter, was the
    assassination in Beirult, last October, of one Aghazarian, a bitter opponent of the
    Dashnags. Neither the said murder, nor the Dashnagtzoutune were mentioned in the pastoral
    letter, But the Housaper, denounced vehemently this “Cawing of Ill Omen”,
    and closed its editorial with the following inflammatory remarks :—

    ” . . . . the gontag (pastoral letter) of the Patriarch is wicked.

    “It is a cawsing of ill omen, that threatens our people, who long for peace, trith.
    the dangers of new schisms.

    “However, is it only our lot to be calm and. circumspect?

    “Let your blood be on your heads.”

    By controlling the churches in different countries, not only they hoped to win over the
    bishops and the prelates, to the support of their campaign against Soviet Armenia, but
    incidentally, to benefit financially, as these churches had property and income in a good
    many places.

    [p. 60]

    THE LAST DESPERATE DRIVE

    Failure on all these fronts and the gradual disruption of their ranks, forced the Dashnag
    General Convention, which met in Paris in March 1933, to take drastic measures. They had
    to terrorize the diaspora into submission, and incidentally stop the gradual
    disintegration of the rank and file. There could be no better means to achieve this double
    purpose, than to start a violent campaign against their opponents. War against the enemy
    would bring internal unity. In this, they succeeded in part.

    It was decided to create a secret Supreme Council with invisible headquarters, and a
    central Bureau for window dressing. The real power and the direction of affairs was to be
    in the hands of these few men in the dark. The policy of action adopted was secret
    intrigue, conspiracies and violence. Of these methods they were past masters. The
    declaration was openly broadcast that the only obstacle to their domination of the
    Armenian diaspora was the Armenian Democratic Liberal Party; therefore, they should be
    fought by every means and on evrey [sic] front.

    The immediate excuse for a fight was the Tricolor flag of the defunct Armenian government.
    All of a sudden quarrels sprang up in Egypt, France, Greece, America and Bulgaria, over
    the flag which the Dashnags wanted to raise in every public function and at every public
    gathering place.

    Acts of violence followed in the wake of these quarrels. Armenian leaders of official
    standing, both laymen and churchmen, were assaulted in Egypt, Syria, Greece, America, and
    elsewhere. Even murders were committed in some of these countries.

    [p. 61]The much lamented Archbishop Tourian, Prelate of the Armenian church in America, was
    assassinated because he obeyed the orders of His Holiness, the Catholicos, to keep
    the church away from political influences and to prevent its being used as a moral
    weapon in the hands of unbelievers and the avowed enemies of the government of
    Armenia. He did not belong to any political faction. He was a devoted servant of the
    church only, and had only her interests at heart. During the Armenian day exercises
    at the Chicago fair last year, he supported the decision of the committee in charge,
    which was to display only the Stars and the Stripes. He was opposed by a group of
    Dashnag adherents, who had insisted on bringing the Tri-color of the former Armenian
    government into the hall, in spite of the decision of the committee. The Prelate’s
    stand was supported by the votes of an overwhelming majority of the audience.

    However, the Chicago incident was not the real reason for the Dashnag opposition to
    the Prelate. This antagonism started soon after he landed in this country in 1931,
    and tried to preserve the moral prestige of the Holy See of Echmiadzin, which was
    being represented by the Dashnag press as controlled by the Soviet Secret Service—the
    Cheka. The Archbishop also opposed the Dashnag propaganda in favor of removing the
    Holy See from Armenia to some other country. Their success in this move would have
    meant the closing of a spiritual center that has existed for sixteen centuries, and
    the final stamping out of Christianity from Soviet Armenia. Armenian bishops all
    over the world acted like Archbishop Tourian did, and most all of them incurred the
    enmity of the Dashnag society.

    The incident in Chicago was used merely as an excuse to intensify the persecution of
    the Prelate, Led by

    [p. 62]

    the Hairenik, their central mouthpiece in Boston, the entire Dashnig
    organization went out on the war-path. Calumnies and indignities were hurled in
    abundance at the churchman who had dared to “insult the tri-color”. For
    months, previous to the death of this saintly servant of God, bitter hatred and
    denunciation of him were spouted by the Hairenik and roared from platforms.

    He was first represented as the agent of the Soviet Cheka, and his ousting from
    office was demanded. He was then threatened with violence, at first covertly, and
    soon, openly. Besides pourinq out its venom and malice editorially, the Hairenik admitted
    to its columns communications which demanded that the Archbishop be punished
    ruthlessly. On July 27, 1933, it puhlished a letter in which a monetary reward was
    promised to those who would teach the Prelate a lesson. The writer of another
    letter, published by the Hairenik on August 1, 1933, demanded that Tourian
    “be ruthlessly punished”, and expressed surprise that “Tourian has
    left Chicago without being punished”.

    The deplorable results of this fanatical agitation were soon to follow. On August
    13, 1933, some young ruffians belonging to the Dashnag society assaulted the Prelate
    in Westboro, Mass. and would have caused him serious physical injury if they had not
    been prevented. Three of these were arrested, tried and punished. The Hairenik condoned
    this outrage in an editorial on August 17, 1933, and made heroes of the culprits, at
    the same time blaming the victim for the episode.

    The overwhelming majority of the community supported the Prelate. His Holiness, the
    Catholicos of Echmiadzin, Supreme head of the Armenian church, approved of the
    conduct of the Archbishop and sent him, repeatedly, his blessings and full
    confidence. He ordered

    [p. 63]

    that thc controversy be stopped, and the community follow the Prelate. The Dashnags
    alone defied the authority of His Holiness, and continued in their anarchistic
    opposition in a more violent fashion. Short of actually inciting their followers to
    murder the Prelate, the Dashnag publications did everything else, in order to injure
    him morally and materially.

    In a virulent editorial entitled, “A Masterpiece of Pharisaism”, Hairenik
    hurled blasphemy and insult at the late Prelate, who had published a pastoral
    letter for the Christmas season, exhorting his people to cast away hatred and
    selfishness and cultivate brotherly love and forgiveness. “That unworthy
    clergyman is so shameless, that he is not even ashamed of giving such advice,”

    declares the Dashnag paper, and continues, “Indeed, instead of addressing to
    ‘the beloved people’ those sermons, the sincerity of which nobody can believe,
    Archbishop Leon should have rendered an infnitely more christian and patriotric
    service to this colony and this church, if he would have, at least under the
    inspiration of the great mystery ol Christmas, the comtton decency of publicly
    confessing the sins he has committed, and, as a first step of repentance, he would
    resign once for all from his culpable leanings of dividing this colony and this
    church”.

    The editorial appeared on December 21st, 1933, three days before the assassination
    of the Prelate in the Holy Cross Armenian church of New York. This horrible crime
    shocked everybody except the members of the Dashnagtzoutune, their leaders and their
    press. These latter could hardly conceal their satisfaction; their only regret was
    that eight members of their sociefy were arrested and indicted for the murder. They
    even tried to excuse the crime, and held the victim and his supporters morally
    ressponsible
    for the bloody tragedy.

    [p. 64]

    patriotism perverted

    The Boston Hairenik, which had for six months preached hatred against the
    Prelate, and had inflamed the passions of its followers to white heat, came out with
    a brazen editorial in its issue of December 27th, 1933, and expressed the wish that
    the blood of the Archbishop would, “Finally bring to their senses all those who
    incite and inflame the passions ot’ the masses”. With the same breath, the
    Dashnag sheet blamed the Cheka—Soviet secret police—and the opponents of the
    Armenian Revolutionary Federation, for the unfortunate situation. “Moreover,
    said the Hairenik, the opponents of the A. R. F. gradually became very rash and
    reckless in their inciting and intransigeant conduct, and in a precipitous rnanner,
    brought upon us the stormy reality in which we are found”.
    The above
    sentences can only mean one thing, that those who dare to oppose the Dashnag society
    are bound to sufier punishment and physical injury. Such language and mentality are
    becoming only to the Italian Mafia and the underworld gangsters.

    Not one Dashnag paper condemned the murder without reservation. Some even excused
    it, as did the Paris Harach in its issue of January 5th, 1934, in the
    following words.

    “lf the Dashnagtzoutune or any Dashnag has suggested this murder, under such
    horrible circumstances, and without any excuse, they also should be tried and
    condemned,”

    Of excuses, the Dashnagtzoutune had plenty, of course.

    Armenian public opinion did not hesitate in coming to the decision that the group
    that had so bitterly hated and persecuted the Archbishop was closely connected with
    the instigators and the plotters of the murder. A mighty wave of indignation and
    protest swept the Armenian

    [p. 65]

    communities all over the world and the United States. Public mass meetings were held
    in which the Dashnag society and its leaders were charged with responsibility for
    the crime; and the people, stirred to the bottom of its soul, demanded that the
    actual murderers, as well as the, organizers of the murder, be found and handed over
    to justlce.

    Special memorial services were held in the Armenian churches all over the world, and
    the death of the Prelate was mourned by the highest ecclesiastical authorities. He
    was declared a martyr. All national organizations and groups came out officially,
    and expressed deep sorrow for the crime. All the Armenian press condemned the A. R.
    Federation as the author of thi crime; that is, all, except the Dashnag press, which
    acted true to its traditional method of blackening the character of their victims.
    Even after his death, the late Prelate was subjected to calumnies and slander.

    Whatever the fate of the nine Dashnags who are now under indictment in New York for
    the murder of the Archbishop, the Armenian public will always be firm in its
    conviction, that the demands of justice will be only partly satisfied until the real
    instigators and plotters of this horrible crime are found and punished.

    The late Archbishop Leon Tourian was martyred for his faithfulness to his duty and
    his God.

     


    [p. 66]

    CONCLUSION

    Dashnagtzoutune was organized for liberating Turksh Armenia. Its leaders, all Armenians
    from the Caucasus, failed to take into consideration the peculiar political and social
    conditions under which the Armenian people lived in Turkey; and their insurrectional
    attempts and methods were used as excuses by the Turkish authorities for massacres and
    renewed oppression.

    Its opportunism, its internal corruption and terroristic methods prevented the best
    Armenian elements from joining the movement for Armenian independence; while its adherence
    to the Russian socialism created confusion and wasted much precious energy in the
    maelstrom of the Russian revolution.

    Its high handed acts in dealing with the instituted Armenian authorities in Turkey,
    created internal quarrels and prevented the formation of a unified front against the
    Turkish government before the world war, and in the allied conferences, after the war,
    thereby preventing the solution of the Turkish Armenian question independently of the
    course of the Russian revolution. This failure was consummated in the treaty of Sèvres.
    By their signing this treaty themselves, instead of the Armenian National Delegation, the
    rightful representatives of the Armenians in Turkey, the Dashnag government of the
    Armenian Republic invited the Turkish attack on itself and hastened its own downfall.

    ^ The former ministers and officials of the Armenian Republic fomented internal
    dissensions and quarrels wherever they went, in order to impose their will on the Arnenian
    people and its institutions. Being always believers in terroristic methods, the Dashnag
    leaders encouraged

    [p. 67]

    physical violence against their opponents, with the result, that many acts of violence
    have been committed by their followers during the last few years in various countries.

    While the Armenian people, as a whole, and all its organizations, political, charitable,
    ecclesiastical etc. see a political future for our race in the present Soviet Armenia, and
    therefore support it despite its communistic regime, and desire to bring their assistance
    to its reconstruction, the Dashnagtzoutune stands alone in its opposition, advocates its
    separation from the federal union of the Soviets, and foments plots against its
    government.

    Thus we behold the picture of the A. R. Federation as an enemy of the nucleus of Armenian
    political life; as an organization that has degenerated so far, that it can be compared
    with the Italian Mafia, and the gangsters of this country. It stands alone and condemned
    by the Armenian public. Its hands are raised against everybody, its plottings and crimes
    have rocked the conscience of all decent Armenians, and have disgraced our people before
    the civilized world.

    patriotism perverted papazian serope kapriel
    Patriotism Perverted, book cover

    [p. 68]APPENDIX I

    A partial list of Armenian victims of terrorism.

    1. Isahag ]amharian, a wealthy Moscow millionaire, stabbed to death in 1902,
    within the enclosure of the Armenian church at Moscow, by the agents of a group who
    had previously abducted him and tried to extort money. (‘History of the
    Dashnagtzoutune’, by M. Varandian, pages 325-326-327).

    2. Mateos Baliozian, a wealthy Armenian merchant of Smyrna, was murdered in
    1902, by one Horen Sarkisian, a member of the Dashnag secret group. (‘History of the
    Dashnagtzoutune’, by M. Varandian, page 450). Baliozian was accused of betraying
    Armenian revolutionists to the Turkish government. This suspicion had no basis. The
    more probable motive of his murder was that he would not give financial aid to local
    revolutionary chieftains.

    3. Gerektzian was killed in Erzerum in 1891 by the decislofl of the local
    Dashnag committee. They cast lots and the lot wa| drawn by Aram Aramian, who killed
    Gerektzian. (‘History o the Dashnagtzoutune’, by M. Varandian, page 86).

    4. Mihran, a famous fighter of the A. R. Federation, had opposed the adoption
    of socialism as a program by the socieity. In his opposition he even had threatened
    to use violence. He was found guilty by the Dashnag Convention of Vienna in 1907 and
    was condemned to death. This sentence was carried out in 1909. (‘History of the
    Dashnagtzoutune’, by M. Varandian, page 491).

    5. Abbot Arsen Vartabed of the monastery of Akhtamar near Van, and his
    secretary Mihran, were brutally murdered in 1904 by Ishkan, a notorious Dashnag
    chieftain. Ishkan and his gang attacked the monastery one night, dragged the abbot
    and his secretary out, shot them first and then stabbed them to death. The bodies
    were then cut to pieces and thrown on the shores of lake Van. Arsen Vartabed was a
    saintly and patriotic clergyman. He had opposed the designs of Ishkan , who wanted

    [p. 69]

    to control the property and the income of the monastery. After his death, Ishkan and
    his gang pillaged the ancient monastery.

    6. Dehertzi, David was a very capable and trustworthy man in the ranks of the
    Dashnags in Van. He enjoyed the confidence of the local Committee and knew all the
    secrets of the society. He was therefore sent into Persia on a secret mission.
    Returning to Van he found that his fiancee had been gravely mistreated by Aram, the
    chief Dashnag leader in the district. He was immediately disarmed and imprisoned at
    Aram’s order, but managed to escape. Maddened with thoughts of revenge, he betrayed
    everything to the Turkish authorities, causing the arrest of many, and the
    confiscation of all the weapons of the society. He was one day shot and killed early
    in 1908.

    7. Garjganttzi Manoug, a former Dashnag, who had opposed the authority and
    the arbitrary acts of Ishkan, Dashnag leader, was shot and killed in 1910. However,
    the murderer was shot by a companion of his victim and died in a few days, after
    charging Ishkan with responsibility for the unfortunate episode.

    8erdos Capamajian, the mayor of Van, a wealthy and ambitious man had
    antagonized Ishkan. He was shot and killed one winter night in 1912 while entering
    his carriage with his wife and daughter.

    9. Hampartzoum Arakelian, the well known 70 year old editor of the journal
    “Mushag” of Tiflis, and a powerful and relentless toe of the Armenian
    Revolutionary Federation, whose biting pen and sarcasm had mercifully lashed the
    Dashnag stupidity and arbitrariness for many years, was one night stabbed and killed
    in his bed by terrorists. He had often been branded as a ‘traitor’ by the Dashnag
    papers. Popular opinion blamed the Tiflis Committee of the Dashnags for this crime,
    which was followed as usual, by a campaign of falsification and calumny in the
    Dashnag press throughout the world. This was in 1918.

    10. Garjigian, a Dashnag of high rank, who occupied a ministerial chair in
    the newly formed Armenian Republic at Erivan, was shot and killed late in 1918 by
    another Dashnag, an officer of the army, Egor Der Minasian. The real motives for
    this murder were never made public by the government. The

    [p. 70]

    probable causes may have been dissensions within the Dashnag party.

    11. Bedros Atamian, manager of the Ramgavar paper, ‘Nor Alik’, was attacked
    on a street in Saloniki, Greece, on the night of November 4, 1926, and hit on the
    head and stabbed. He died in the hospital after a few hours. Arshak Enofkian, a
    Dashnag, was arrested for this crime, just when he was going to sail from Saloniki
    for Marseilles, France, on a false passport. The case was tried before the criminal
    court in Saloniki, on January 26, 27, and 28, 1928. Arshag Enofkian was found guilty
    as an accessory, and was sentenced to four years of hard labor and a fine of 15,000
    drachmes.

    12. Dekhruni, intellectual, a member of the Hunchagist party, was shot and
    killed in 1929 in Beirut, Syria. A Dashnagtzagan, Kuchuk Stepan, was accused of the
    murder, but was acquitted finally. Dekhruni was a vehement opponent of the
    Dashnagtzoutune, and public opinion blamed the Dashnag Committee of Beirut for this
    murder.

    13. Sarkis Keyijian, intellectual, a dissenting Dashnag, who opposed the
    Bureau in Paris, was shot to death in Athens, GreeceS, July 20, 1933, Several
    Dashnagtzagans were accused of this| murder by the authorities and are still under
    indictment.

    14. Mihran Aghazarian, a Hunchagist editor and a bitter foe of the
    Dashnagtzoutune, on whose life an attempt had already been made several years ago,
    was shot and killed in Beirut, Syria, October 13, 1933. The murderers have not been
    arrested so far, but the Armenian public accused the local Dashnag society openly
    for this crime, and the victim was given a national funeral.

     

     

    [p. 71]

    APPENDIX II

    ARMENIAN CHURCHMEN PERSECUTED BY THE ARMENIAN REVOLUTIONARY FEDERATION

    Archbishop Leon Tourian, who was brutally murdered on Dec. 24, 1933, in the Armenian
    Holy Cross Church, of New York, allegedly by Dashnag terrorists, was not the only
    churchman of high rank persecuted by the Armenian Revolutionary Federation. This society
    waged a campaign of calumny and persecution against all those leaders of the Armenian
    people, who would not allow the exploitation of the church and the national institutions
    by the Dashnag trespassers. This campaign existed for some time, but assumed a more
    violent character in the last few years.

    The following are the most prominent churchmen who are being persecuted by the
    Dashnagtzoutune:

    Most Rev. Archbishop Mesrob Magistross:—This churchman was formerly the Prelate of
    Tiflis, Caucasus. During the world war he presided over the so-called National Bureau,
    that was engaged in recruiting and equiping the Armenian Volunteer regiments for the
    Russian Army. This Bureau was under the control of the Dashnagtzoutune, and the Archbishop
    was everywhere advertised as a great patriot in the Dashnag press. A few years ago this
    eminent churchman was appointed to the Prelacy of the Diocese of Perso-India. On account
    of his friendly attitude toward Soviet-Armenia, the Dashnag society represented him as a
    communist to the Persian government, and, as a result of this false accusation he was
    expelled from Persia.

    Rt. Rev. Bishop Roupen Manasian. He is the Prelate of the Armenians in Mesopotomia.
    For years this churchman has been subjected to persecution in the Dashnag press. He was
    even attacked once in the city of Bagdad. The Dashnag papers tried to discredit Bishop
    Roupen as “the agent of the Cheka”, and published a long drawn fabricated story
    about him to prove their accusations. The Bishop brought a libel suit against
    “Housaper”,

    [p. 72]

    the Dashnag organ of Cairo. The mixed tribunal of Cairo, composed of Egyptian and European
    judges, found “Housaper”, and its publishers guilty. They were condemned to pay
    a fine and the expenses of the trial.

    Bishop Roupen was also accused by the Dashnag society as being a bolshevik.
    However, the government of Irak would not heed these false accusations; and the late King
    Feisal expressed his confidence and respect for the Prelate by receiving him into royal
    audience.

    Most Rev. Archbishop Housig Zohrabian, The prelate of the Armenians of Roumania,
    was regarded as a most worthy clergyman while he was supposed to be friendly to the
    Dashnagtzoutune. But when he opposed the intrigues and exploitations of this society and
    shut the gates of the prelacy against the Dashnag leaders and workers, a campaign of
    persecution and calumny was started against him. Archbishop Housig defended the church
    interests vigorously, and defeated all the intrigues against his office and the Armenian
    Prelacy of Roumania.

    Right Rev. Bishop Garabed Mazloumian, The prelate of the Armenians in Greece, who
    refused to be a tool in the hands of the enemies of Armenia. He was attacked one night and
    beaten by the agents of the Dashnags, who also sheared his beard in order to insult the
    aged prelate. He was also accused as an “age! of the Cheka” before the Hellenic
    government; but this false I cusation was not given any credence.

    His Eminence Most Rev. Archbishop Torcome, Patriarch of Jerusalem:—While he was
    the Prelate of Egypt he donated a precious emerald ring for the benefit of the
    Independence Loan of Armenia (1920), and had services of thanksgiving held in the
    churches. After the establishment of the Soviet regime in Amenia, Archbishop Torcome, as a
    patriotic Armenian, maintained a friendly and correct attitude towards the new government,
    He would not allow the ex-ministers and dignitaries of the former government, who had
    established themselves in Egypt after being expelled from Armenia, to plunder the income
    and the property belonging to the ecclesiastical institutions of Cairo and Alexandria and
    suppressed all their attempts of exploitation with a vigorous hand. Therefore, he aroused
    the bitter enmity of the Dashnags

    [p. 73]

    against him. Housaper, the Dashnag paper in Egypt, and all its colleagues, insulted
    and columnized the Prelate in a most infamous manner. They even organized an attack on the
    Prelacy; they represented him as a Bolshevik to the Egyptian government, and did
    everything within their power to prevent his being chosen to the Patriarchate of
    Jerusalem.

    His Holiness Khoren I, Catholicos of All the Armenians was also subjected to attack
    by the Dashnag press. His first Gontag, (encyclical) was declared to be
    “inspired by the Cheka”. The Pontiff was represented as a
    “man-machine” and his orders and instructions were declared to be void and
    without any value. The Dashnag press openly preached rebellion against the execution of
    those orders. This was done in the name of “popular rights”. His Holiness the
    Catholicos and the Supreme Spiritual Council were all represented, continually, as the
    agents of the Cheka, and Echmiadzin was declared to be a nest of the Bolshevik secret
    police. The editorials of “Hairenik”, the Boston organ of the Dashnagtzoutune,
    have been filled with these misrepresentations for the last six months.

    His Holiness Sahak, Catholicos of Cilicia, now established in Antilyas, near
    Beirut, Syria, was also subjected to an infamous attack by “Housaper”, the
    Dashnag paper of Cairo, Egypt. After the unfortunate murder of Mihran Agazarian in Beirut
    last October, His Holiness published a pastoral letter, inviting his flock to be calm and
    peaceful, observe brotherly love, refrain from acts of violence and be law-abiding
    citizens of the land where they have taken refuge. In its issue of Dec. 6, 1933,
    “Housaper” denounces this Pastoral letter as a “Cawing of Ill Omen”,
    and insults the 85 year old Patriarch as “wicked”, as one who was raised to his
    office by the Sultan, and as “one who incites national disruption”.

    [p. 74]
    APPENDIX III

    THE 61ST ARTICLE OF THE TREATY OF BERLIN

    After the close of the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-78, in which the Turks were
    thoroughly beaten, the European Powers met in a conference at Berlin, to settle all
    the problems effecting Europe as a whole, and to draw up a peace treaty between the
    two combatants. In this conference, the Armenian question was recognized as an
    international problem, under the Article 61 of the treaty.

    Here is that Article—

    “The Sublime Port (meaning Turkey) undertakes to carry out, without further
    delay, the improvements and reforms demanded by local requirements in the provinces
    inhabited by Armenians, and to guarantee their security against the Circassians
    Kurds. The Sublime Port will, periodically, make known the steps taken to this
    effect to the Powers, who will superintend their application.”

    APPENDIX IV

    THE TREATY OF ALEXANDROPOL

    The text of the treaty signed between the Armenian delegation and the Turks at
    Alexandropol, has never been published by those who were responsible for it. Neither
    Mr. A. Khatisian, the head of the delegation that signed the treaty, nor Mr. S.
    Vratzian, the head of the Armenian government of the time, who have both written
    voluminous histories of the Armenian Republic, embody the text of the treaty in
    their books. This omission may be due to the consciousness ol guilt and sharne in
    their hearts.

    The following is a translation of the document as it was published in the Turkish
    press:—

    ARTICLE 3—As it is evident from Turkish, Russian and all other world-statistics,
    and from the established social situation, we again, at this occasion, confirm that
    there is no territory within

    [p. 75]

    the Ottoman borders where the Armenians form a majority. (Articles 4 and 5 draw the
    boundaries of Armenia and Turkey according to which, the cities and districts of
    Kars, Ardahan, Ikdir, Alexandropol, also the Mt. Ararat and other important
    territories were left to Turkey. Armenia was almost halved and reduced to the
    boundaries drawn in the treaty of Batoum in 1918).

    ARTICLE 6—Hereafter, with the good intention of preventing any act or episode,
    that may disturb tranquility through agitation and incitements, the Republic of
    Erivan undertakes not to allow any military organization, excepting a division of
    1500 paid soldiers with 8 field or mountain cannons and 20 machine guns, which will
    protect the borders of the country; and lightly armed gendarmerie which will be able
    to keep the internal order of the country.

    The Armenian Republic is free to erect fortifications to protect the country from
    enemies, and to place as many heavy guns in these fortifications as it desires.
    These heavy artillery will not contain obuses of 15 centimeters and long range guns
    of 10.50 caliber, and other howitzers, which could be used in the army if necessary.

    ARTICLE 7—The government of Erivan agrees that, the Turkish minister or
    representative, who will reside in Erivan after peace is established, supervise and
    examine these matters. In exchange for this, whenever the Armenian Republic so
    desires, the Grand National Assembly of Turkey undertakes to give armed assistance
    to Armenia, against internal and external dangers.

    (The rest of Article 7, and Article 8, relate to the question of repatriating
    refugees and fugitives).

    ARTICLE 9—The government of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, although it has
    been obliged to maintain an army for two years and at great expense, and though it
    has a right to demand an indemnity as a result of the war against Armenia which it
    has been compelled to wage, gives up this indemnity, because it has an extreme
    respect for the accepted and well known humanitarian and judicial principles.

    ARTICLE 10—The government of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey undertakes,
    with all sincerity, to assist the development of the Republic of Erivan, and the
    solidification of the

    [p. 76]

    authority of the Erivan Republic, as it is described within the boundaries drawn in
    Article 4.

    ARTICLE 11—The government of Erivan declares, that it considers as null and void
    the Sèvres Treaty, which is absolutely disavowed by the government of the Grand
    National Assembly of Turkey. It undertakes to withdraw its delegations of Europe and
    America, that are tools in the hands of some imperialistic governments and circles.
    Both parties assume mutual obligations in good faith to remove all kinds of
    misunderstandings that exist between the two nations.

    As a proof of the sincerity of its desire to develop in peace and to respect the
    rights of good neighborliness with Turkey, the Armenian government is willing to
    keep away from the government those persons who pursue imperialistic aims and will
    disturb the tranquility of the two people. (Article 12 allows that the Secretariat
    of Religions of the Turkish government have the right to confirm the election of the
    religious head of the moslems living in Armenia).

    ARTICLE 13—The two contracting parties mutually undertake not to prevent the free
    passage and transit of persons and merchandise belonging to the other party, over
    their railroads and highways.

    Turkey, being under obligation to prevent menacing agitations by imperialists
    against her existence, will keep under her own control the railroads and the means
    of communication of the Republic of Erivan, until the signing of a general peace, so
    that, the quantity of arms to be imported will not be any more than specified in
    Article 6, on condition that this control will not interfere with the freedom of
    transportations. Also, the two contracting parties will prevent the entry into the
    Republic and the residence therein, of officials and unofficial bodies and
    representatives belonging to the imperialistic powers.

    ARTICLE 14—The government of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, will have the
    right to organize in Armenia temporary military measures against attacks that
    threaten the independence and the territorial integrity of the Turkish state on
    condition that the rights that are guaranteed the Republic of Erivan are not to be
    interfered with.

    [p. 77]

    ARTICLE 15—The Republic of Erivan agrees to consider as null and void all those
    stipulations of treaties she has signed with any power, which relate to Turkey and
    are harmful to the interests of Turkey.

     

    APPENDIX V

    VRATZIAN’S APPEAL TO THE TURKS FOR MILITARY AID

    As the president of the Armenian government, Simon Vratzian sent an urgent appeal to
    the Turkish government, asking that military supplies and Turkish troops be sent into
    Armenia, to help the rebel government fight its Armenian adversaries. The official
    document was handed to Behaeddin, the representative in Erivan of the Turkish high
    command, to be forwarded to Angora.

    Here is the text—

    “Please forward the present request promptly to your high authorities, and as I have
    explained to you, urge on them for an immediate answer.

    “The fight of Armenia against the bolsheviks, and for its own freedom and
    independence, serves, as we are convinced, not only Armenia itself, but also the interests
    of all the nations of the Near East.

    “For this reason, Armenia hopes, that during this fight she will receive help from
    her neighbors, and first of all the interests of the Turkish people also require that
    Armenia should come victorious out of this fight and remain independent.

    “Relying on this conviction, the Armenian government requests the government of the
    Grand National Assembly of Turkey, that, in the name of the mutual interests of the two
    peoples, and as speedily as possible, it

    1.—”Return the Armenian war prisoners that are now on the war front of Erivan.

    2.—”Give the Armenian army some ammunition under certain conditions; first of all
    cartridges for Russian three-lined rifles and for Turkish mausers; or else rifles of the
    Russian and Lepel system.

    [p. 78]

    3—”Communicate with us, if the government of the Grand National Assembly finds it
    possible to send military aid to Armenia, and if able to do so, to what extent and when?

    “In making this appeal, the Armenian government relies on the friendly relations that
    have been established with the treaty of Alexandropol, and which were disturbed during the
    bolshevik rule.”

    Respectfully

    SIMON VRATZIAN

    President of the Armenian Government.

    Erivan,
    March 18, 1921.

    APPENDIX VI

    THE SEVRES TREATY

    The Articles 88-93, Section VI, of the treaty of Sevres signed by the Allied
    powers and the Armenian Republic on the one hand, and Turkey on the other, relate to
    Armenia and its independence. The following is a translation of those articles as
    they appeared in Armenian papers.

    ARTICLE 88.—Turkey recognizes Armenia as a free and independent state, in
    accordance with the step taken by the Allied powers.

    ARTICLE 89.—Turkey and Armenia, as well as the other high contracting parties,
    agree to submit to the arbitration of the President of the United States the problem
    of the frontiers to be established between Armenia and Turkey in the vilayets of
    Erzerum, Trebizond, Van and Bitlis, and to accept his decision in the matter; also
    all other measures which he may perscribe in regard to an outlet on the sea for
    Armenia, and with regard to the demilitarization of the Turkish territories adjacent
    to the above boundaries.

    ARTICLE 90.—When boundaries are drawn according to Article 89, and the above
    mentioned vilayets or definite parts of

    [p. 79]

    them are ceded to Armenia, Turkey hereby renounces all her rights and claims over
    territories thus ceded. The amount and nature of that part of the public debts of
    Turkey, which is apportioned to Armenia, also the rights that are to be transferred
    to Armenia are to be determined in accordance with the stipulations of Articles
    241-244 of the present treaty.

    Subsequent agreements will settle, if necessary, all those problems which are not
    settled in this treaty and which are likely to arise, gradually, in relation to the
    transfer of the above provinces.

    ARTICLE 91,—In the event that the territories indicated in Article 89, are
    transferred to Armenia, a commission for boundaries will be appointed, (the
    formation of this commission will be decided later), in order to draw up the
    boundaries between Armenia and Turkey within three months.

    ARTICLE 92.—The boundaries of Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan will be determined
    by direct agreements between those states.

    If under any circumstances, these governments fail to decide upon their boundaries
    through mutual agreements, and the decision prescribed in article 89 is already
    given, in that event the boundaries will be determined by the principal powers.

    ARTICLE 93.—Armenia agrees to incorporate in the treaties with the principal
    powers, those decisions which the powers deem essential to protect the rights of
    those inhabitants of Armenia, who defer from the majority in race, language and
    religion.

    Armenia equally agrees to incorporate in the treaties with the principal powers
    those decisions which the powers deem essential for the freedom of transit and for a
    status of justice toward the commerce of other nations.

    Download as pdf: Patriotism perverted

    https://www.turkishnews.com/tr/content/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Patriotism-perverted.pdf

  • Jewish Professor Requests Information From Israeli Gov’t on Armenian Genocide

    Jewish Professor Requests Information From Israeli Gov’t on Armenian Genocide

     th
    Prominent Israeli scholar Yair Auron filed an official request with Israel’s Foreign Ministry on December 21, 2017 asking for all internal documents on agreements and commitments undertaken by the State of Israel with Turkey and Azerbaijan not to recognize the Armenian Genocide.
     
    The request sent by Auron’s attorney Eitay Mack to the Foreign Ministry, states that “official Israeli denial of the Armenian Genocide is tied to its diplomatic and military relations with Turkey, and in recent years to the relations with Azerbaijan.”
     
    Prof. Auron’s request under Israel’s Freedom of Information Law explains that “Turkey has purchased from Israel training and military systems worth billions of USD. The arms deals included the upgrading of planes and tanks, radar and monitoring systems, missiles and munitions.” Azerbaijan has also purchased from Israel close to $5 billion worth of advanced weaponry.
     
    In 2011, during Knesset’s deliberations on the Armenian Genocide, Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon and Alex Miller, Chairman of the Knesset Education Committee, unequivocally ruled out the possibility of Israel recognizing the Armenian Genocide in order not harm relations with Azerbaijan — Israel’s “key strategic ally in the Islamic world.”
     
    Prof. Auron’s letter also quotes from several leaders of the right wing “Yisrael Beiteinu” party stating that they will ensure that the Knesset does not recognize the Armenian Genocide. “Yisrael Beiteinu” is led by Israel’s Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman. Arye Gut, a propagandist for Azerbaijan and spokesperson for the International Israel-Azerbaijan Association, has affirmed that “Lieberman is one of the architects of the Azerbaijani-Israeli partnership.” In an interview with RTV-TV, Lieberman announced that the Armenian Genocide “was a theoretical, disputed historical issue and that the lack of recognition was not necessarily related to Turkey, but primarily to [Israel’s] strategic relations with Azerbaijan.” Prof. Auron stresses that these arguments sound very similar to those who deny the Jewish Holocaust.
     
    As an example of Israel’s close relations with Azerbaijan, Prof. Auron’s letter reports that “613 trees were planted” on February 26, 2016, “at the Chaim Weizmann (1st President of Israel) Forest, to mark ‘24 years to the Khojaly genocide,’ in memory of 613 victims, attended by MK [Member of Knesset] Avigdor Lieberman. Only Azerbaijan and Turkey mark this ‘genocide’ event. In recent years, official Israel has become a direct and indirect supporter of the purported Khojaly genocide claim. The battle of Khojaly took place in February 1992, in the midst of a cruel war between Azerbaijan and Armenia over the Nagorno Karabagh province. There are several versions as to what happened there, including the number of those who perished, but one thing is not disputed among the international community — no genocide by its common definition took place there.”
     
    Prof. Auron’s concludes his request from the Israeli government by stating: “one suspects that not only does the State of Israel ‘trade’ in the recognition of the Armenian Genocide, but that it has taken upon itself real commitments on this matter, in agreements with Azerbaijan and Turkey.”
     
    Consequently, Attorney Mack specifically demands that the Israel’s Foreign Ministry should disclose the following information:
     
    1)  “Any documentation of agreements, understandings, commitments vis-à-vis Azerbaijan and Turkey as to the question of recognizing the Armenian Genocide.”
     
    2)  “Any correspondence with Turkish or Azeri representatives on the question of recognizing the Armenian Genocide.”
     
    3)  “Any documentation of meetings or communications between the representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs with Turkish or Azeri representatives on the question of recognizing the Armenian Genocide.”
     
    4)  “Decisions and position papers of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as to the question of recognizing the Armenian Genocide, in view of Turkey and Azerbaijan’s objection.”
     
    It remains to be seen if the Israeli Foreign Ministry complies with Prof. Auron’s legal request. Both the American and British governments, which have similar laws on requirements to disclose internal information, have responded to similar requests from their own citizens, making public secret documents on the Armenian Genocide. It would be understandable if certain portions of the disclosed documents were to be blacked out by the Israeli government for confidential reasons, to protect the identities of those providing the information or for national security reasons.
  • Shopping mall squabble in California draws venomous Armenian comments and prompts media censure

    Shopping mall squabble in California draws venomous Armenian comments and prompts media censure

    By Ferruh Demirmen, Ph.D.
    September 9, 2017

    The dispute between the Armenian lobby and the Americana-at-Brand shopping mall in Glendale, California last month on whether to display an advertisement on a billboard precipitated a series of events, shedding a disturbing light on the activities of the lobby and two pro-Armenian news outlets. The billboard was intended to advertise The Architects of Denial, a documentary purportedly giving an account of what the lobby calls “Armenian genocide” through interviews with survivors.

    The documentary was funded to the tune of 50,000 dollars by the well-funded Armenian lobby.

    Both the initial squabble and its aftermath were reported in the Armenian media as well as in the LA Times and its affiliate Glendale News-Press – outlets well known for their sympathies towards Armenian causes. The town of Glendale, just outside Los Angeles, is home to more than 65,000 Armenian Diaspora residents.

        Principled stand and surrender

        The Carusso-owned Americana initially refused to accept the billboard, arguing – correctly – that the advertisement was politically charged and would violate the city’s zoning rules. The owners had received advice from the Turkish consulate in Los Angeles in addition to the Armenian community about the advertisement, and was trying to keep its properties “neutral and impartial.”

        The notion of neutrality and impartiality embraced by Americana was not acceptable for the Armenian Diaspora. Upon Americana’s refusal, the Armenian lobbying apparatus quickly sprang into action. With intense pressure from the lobby, including threat of boycott of all Carusso-owned properties, Americana quickly relented and agreed to display the advertisement.

        It also said it would allow the screening of the documentary in the mall free of charge.

        Jackie Levy, executive vice president of operations for Carusso, even apologized for the initial rejection of the ad.

        The bullying tactics of the Armenian lobby and Americana’s cowardly reversal of its earlier decision were a shame. Here was a case of political extortion exerted on a private company by an ethnic minority that wanted to propagandize a century-old grievance – of all places, in a shopping mall, where people come to relax and do shopping. And the company pitifully caving in.

        For the Armenian lobby, apparently no place in America is off-limits in pursuit of its “genocide” propaganda.

        The sparring exchange

        The event spurred an exchange of opinions between the Turkish and Armenian sides in the comments section of the LA Times. Denouncing the Armenian lobby’s strong-arm tactics and Americana’s total capitulation to its demands, the Turkish commentators argued that the supposed documentary would narrate an old, unproven “genocide,” and that Americana had abandoned all pretences of objectivity.

        In response, the Armenian commentators countered that the “genocide” was real and well-documented, labeling the opposition as “genocide deniers.”

        Although most of the exchanges between the two sides were civil, some of the comments from the Armenian side had a venomous tone. The animosity from the Armenian side was directed not only at Turks, but also at Islam in general.

        One of the Diaspora Armenians referred to Turks as “Turkish Mongol Mutts from Central/East Asia,” adding that “Islam is based on three principles: stealing, killing, and lying.”

        Another one accused the “Islamic Government of Turkey” for “spreading lies and bribing scholars and historians.”

        Dark undertones

        More disturbing was implicit or veiled threats of violence from the Armenian side. A Diaspora Armenian fakely named “S.Schmidt” became ominously too personal with Mr. Ergun Kirlikovali, one of the Turkish commentators. He identified Kirlikovali as a Muslim Turk born in Turkey and now living “comfortably in California,” revealing Kirlikovali’s age, the county he lives in, and even the full name of his wife. The one important information he left out was Kirlikovali’s street address.

        The question arose: What was the purpose of revealing such personal information?

        “S.Schmidt” said Mr. Kirlikovali is “the president of the Assembly of Turkish American Associations (ATAA), a corrupt racist organization whose ONLY purpose is to discredit the Holocost” [sic]. He counseled Kirlikovali to “take your fundamentalist Turkish point of views back to your ancestral lands of Mongolia along with your family.”

        He also wanted to banish another Turkish commentator as an “agent of the government of Turkey.”

        Alarmed that he was being personally targeted, and fearing violence against him or his family, Kirlikovali responded back: “This is a public alert to FBI. I am getting a lot of hate mail from Armenians. I am listed as number one in at least two Armenian hate sites. If something happens to me or my family members, FBI people, please go after this fellow who hides behind the fake name S.Schmidt. He is a notorious Armenian cyber-terrorist who demonizes any one, group, company, religion, or nation that disagrees with Armenians.”

        Media censure

        The disturbing turn of events led the LA Times to quickly remove the incendiary comments from its website. The editors were evidently spooked by Kirlikovali’s call for a FBI alert, and the fact that some of the comments from the Armenian side, with a dark underbelly, were not reflecting favorably on the Diaspora.

        Also expunged from the comments section were two commentaries entered under an alias by this author, decrying the poisonous invective emanated from the Armenian side, likening such diatribe to the mentality of the Ku Klux Klan – the difference being that the targeted group is not black Americans but Moslems and Turks – castigating the LA Times for allowing such racism on its website, and suggesting that Kirlikovali’s FBI alert should be taken seriously. The readers were reminded of the terrorist activities directed against Turkish diplomats in the 1970s and 1980s by fanatics such as Gourgen Yanikian and Hampig Sassounian.

        After “sanitizing” the comments section, of the 55 comments originally posted, at the writing of this article there are now only 41 comments that can be seen on the LA Times website. The 14 comments that were deemed to be incendiary or harshly provocative have been censured out and no longer accessible.

        The bottom line

        The whole episode was a reminder of the hatred or animosity ingrained in the minds of some Diaspora Armenians. Anti-Turkism, Islamophobia, and ethno-religious bias and bigotry seem to be alive and well in some quarters of Armenian Diaspora, and perhaps even more disturbingly, the columns of LA Times.

        Further, language, indirect that it might be, from the Armenian Diaspora that could potentially agitate Armenian youths to take up violence to advance Armenian causes is not new. An example came to light in the wake of the European Court of Human Right’s 2015 Grand Chamber decision on the Switzerland-Perinçek case when Harut Sassounian, a leading Diaspora lobbyist, commented on the defeat of Armenians and criticized the court with an insinuation that was troubling.

          Turks and Turkish Diaspora should wake up to the kind of adversary they are facing.

        • Having Admitted Complicity in Genocide,  Germany Should Now Compensate Armenians

          Having Admitted Complicity in Genocide, Germany Should Now Compensate Armenians

           

          Despite ‘Sultan’ Erdogan’s insults and threats, the German Parliament went boldly forward last week and recognized the Armenian Genocide. In retaliation, Turkey immediately withdrew its ambassador from Berlin.

           

          The historic Bundestag resolution, adopted with a near unanimous decision (1 vote against and 1 abstention), is titled: “In remembrance and commemoration of the genocide of Armenians and other Christian minorities in the Ottoman Empire 101 years ago.” According to ARD television, 74% of the German population agrees that genocide was committed against Armenians. Another revealing survey cited by “Der Spiegel” magazine found that 91% of the German public does not trust Erdogan!

           

          German Chancellor Angela Merkel, fed up with Erdogan’s repeated blackmails, decided to put Turkey’s megalomaniac dictator in his place, while Pres. Obama has to muster the courage to do so! The German leadership had to fend off not only the Turkish regime’s attacks but also sharp criticism from many of the three million Turks living in Germany.

           

          After the Parliament’s decision, Erdogan arrogantly declared: “We have nothing in our past to be ashamed of, but those countries that often accuse Turkey of ‘Armenian genocide’ have the blood of millions of innocent victims.” Turkey’s minister of justice Bekir Bozdag was just as brazen, as he told Germans: “First you burn the Jews in ovens, and then you come and accuse the Turkish people of genocide.” Erdogan and Bozdag must be reminded that Germany, unlike Turkey, long ago admitted the Nazi-era crimes, apologized for the Holocaust, and paid billions of dollars in compensation.

           

          It remains to be seen if ‘big mouth’ Turkish leaders would dare to take punitive actions against Germany, besides the routine withdrawal of their ambassador, as they do each time another government acknowledges the Armenian Genocide. Should Erdogan decide to go beyond making empty threats, such steps would backfire on Turkey as Germany is its largest trading partner. Turkey’s economy is already in serious trouble after Russia banned the import of Turkish goods and discouraged its citizens from going to Turkey as tourists because of the downing of a Russian jet by the Turkish military near the Syrian border last year.

           

          Turkish leaders have already damaged their country’s interests by making provocative and scandalous announcements which have helped to publicize worldwide the German Bundestag’s action on the Armenian Genocide. Thousands of newspapers, websites, TV and radio stations covered the German decision and the Turkish outbursts. It is noteworthy that the international media paid particular attention to the German Parliamentarians’ admission that their country, a military ally of Turkey during World War I, was complicit in the Armenian Genocide.

           

          The New York Times and The Times of London, two of the most prestigious newspapers in the world, published powerful editorials on June 3 reaffirming the facts of the Armenian Genocide, supporting the German’s Parliament’s decision, and urging Turkey to confront its dark past.

           

          In an editorial titled, “Yes, It’s Genocide,” The New York Times wrote: “… It was a genocide, the first of the 20th century…. The Armenians are fully justified in their quest for a historical reckoning…. President Obama, who as a candidate in 2008 pledged to recognize the events of 1915 as a genocide, has failed to do so…. The Germans, who have admirably confronted the terrible genocide in their own history, did the right thing in defying Mr. Erdogan’s threats.”

           

          The London Times’ editorial, “Genocide Denial: The mass slaughter of Armenians needs to be acknowledged by Turkey,” was just as impactful: “The German resolution is right not only in its message but also in diplomacy. Turkish pique is regularly directed at allies who recognize the Armenian genocide. That response is worse than undignified and ahistorical: it is a denial of suffering on an unspeakable scale that poisons the politics of Europe to this day, and it needs to be challenged. The slaughter of Armenians was not, as Turkish apologists maintain, one of the unplanned but inescapable tragedies that happen in wartime. It was a specific campaign of deportation and mass killing by the Ottoman regime.… Modern Germany and its statesmen have expressed repeatedly their nation’s remorse for genocidal barbarism in the last century. It is long past time for Turkey to do the same.”

           

          Having recognized the Armenian Genocide and acknowledged its own share of responsibility and complicity, Germany now has to make appropriate amends to Armenians, thus setting a venerable example for Turkey, not only in recognition, but also in restitution!