Tag: Nagorno-Karabakh

  • Washington DC – Khojali Massacre DEMONSTRATION

    Washington DC – Khojali Massacre DEMONSTRATION

    COMMUNITY DEMONSTRATION

    To Commemorate the Anniversary of Khojali Massacre

    And Protest Armenia’s Occupation of Western Azerbaijan

    Friday, February 26, 2009 Time and Location 11:30 AM  – 12:00 PM:

    Assembling at Dupont Circle

    (intersection of Massachusetts , Connecticut , and New Hampshire avenues).

    Closest metro station: Dupont Circle , red line. 1

    2:00 PM -1:30 PM:

    Walking through Massachusetts Avenue to the Embassy of Armenia

    located at 2225 R Street NW (intersection of Massachusetts Avenue and R Street ,

    near Sheridan Circle ) and holding demonstration.

    1:30 PM:

    Disbanding. This event, organized by local community members,

    has been coordinated with Washington DC Metropolitan Police and Secret Service.

    Sound equipment and signs will be provided, but participants are free to bring their own signs, posters, and flags. 

    Due to heavy traffic in and around DC area and difficulties with finding parking space,

    participants are encouraged to use public transportation,

    especially Metro, to ensure timely arrival.

    For additional information, contact Bedir Memmedli,  703-400-2523  703-400-2523 or bedir_memmedli@yahoo.com

    DEMAND JUSITCE FOR KHOJALI VICTIMS!

    SAY NO TO ARMENIAN MILITARY PRESENCE IN WESTERN AZERBAIJAN !

    SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR AZERBAIJAN’ S TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY

  • Turkification of the Toponyms in the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Turkey

    Turkification of the Toponyms in the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Turkey

    LOOKING FROM THE ARMENIAN SIDE OF THE WINDOW  (A LOOK FROM FROM YEREVAN)   .. TURKISHFORUM

    LUSINE


    header events

    Lusine Sahakyan, PH.D., Yerevan State University
    sahakyan_lusine@yahoo.com
    ABSTRACT

    Toponyms represent persistent linguistic facts, which have major historical and political significance. The rulers of the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Turkey realized the strategic importance of the toponyms and carried out consistent policies towards their distortion and appropriation. With the aim of the assimilation of the toponyms of the newly conquered territories the Ottoman authorities translated them into Turkish from their original languages or transformed the local dialectal place-names by the principle of contamination to make them sound like Turkish word-forms. Yet another method of appropriation was that of the etymological misinterpretation of the toponyms in question. A widespread method was also renaming the places displacing the former place-names altogether. The focus of the present article is the place-name transformation policy of the Ottoman and afterwards Republic of Turkey; the Ottoman (Latin-transcript)-Armenian translation of the decree dating to January 5, 1916 issued by the Minister of War Enver Pasha is presented in this article for the first time in English, Armenian and Russian translations. It concerns the transformation of “non-Muslim” place-names. The article also deals with the artificial term of “Eastern Anatolia” as a substitute for Western Armenia, the political objectives of the pro-Turkish circles as well as the aftermath of putting the mentioned ersatz term into circulation.

    In August 2009, during his visit to Bitlis, a formerly Armenian city in eastern part of what is now Turkey, Turkish President Abdullah Gul said publicly that the original name of the present-day Gyouroymak province was “Norshin”, which, he claimed, was in Kurdish.1 This statement should not be considered as a slip of the tongue; it represents traditional Turkish policies of Turkification and Kurdification of original Armenian toponyms. Norshin is purely an Armenian toponym both by its components “Nor”+”shen”, which mean “a new settlement”, and as a pattern to form place-names. All toponyms (villages, settlements, residential areas, etc.) with the component “shen” are indisputably Armenian as Martunashen, Vasakashen, Getashen, Vankshen, Hamshen, Verishen and the like.

    It should be noted that, besides being linguistically stable phenomena, toponyms are valuable also as bearers of historical information. As such, they can have an effect on current ethnopolitical conflicts, if applied with the aim of distorting and manipulating the historical evidence. This truly strategic significance of the toponyms has not gone unnoticed: the ruling circles of the Ottoman Empire and those of its successor state, the Republic of Turkey, as once again confirmed by the recent reports in the BBC and the Turkish media,2 have devised and implemented consistent policies to falsify the origins and appropriate, through various ways and methods, the Armenian toponyms in the territory under their control.

    The Turkish tribes who settled in various parts of Armenia in the 11-15th centuries and later the Ottoman authorities were changing original Armenian place-names in several ways. First, they were translating their meanings into Turkish such as Tantsout (place with a lot of pear-trees) into Armoudlou, Aghbyurashen (a village of springs) into Kyankendi, Karmrik (based on the word karmir, meaning “red” in Armenian) into Kezelja, Tsaghkadsor (a ravine of flowers) into Darachichek, etc.

    Second, some Armenian toponyms, which had already been transformed somewhat from their original shape under the influence of local dialects, were converted to sound like a word with Turkic roots and pronunciation, thus utilizing the principle of contamination. Thus Armtick (meaning roots in Armenian) was turned to Armoudi, Odzounkhach (a cross+snake) to Ouzounhach, Kyouropaghat (a title which goes back to Latin “curator palatii,” which was given to especially Armenian governors by the Byzantine Emperors) to Gyurbaghdi, Karhatavan (settlement where stone in cut) to Karadivan, Jeghopourkents (place with o lot of walnut-trees) to Chopurgens, etc.

    Third widely-spread method of distortion was to give new names to old settlements in an attempt to bury their ethnic affiliation in oblivion.3 Even Christian Armenian sanctuaries were given new names. Thus, the famous Armenian monastery Varagavank was renamed Yedikiliseh (meaning seven churches in Turkish), while the Holy Echmiadzin, the center of Armenian Church, where the Supreme Armenian Catholicos resided, was turned into Ouchkiliseh (three churches). According to our estimates, several dozens of settlements have been named by the word “kiliseh” or “Gharakiliseh” in both Western and Eastern Armenia.

    Fourth, the attempts to give Turkish etymological explanations to the Armenian toponyms represented yet another method of their appropriation campaign. Such faulty experiments were carried out, in particular, by Evliya Celebi, the Ottoman court historian of the 17th century, whose interpretations have often served as basis for modern Turkish scholars. Here is one example. In his Book of Travels (Seyahatname), the old Armenian place-name Bayberd or Baberd (which through dialectal and foreign lexical influences has undergone sound interchange and consequently was pronounced as Baybourd) is etymologically explained as “bay” (meaning rich in Turkish) + “yourd” (settlement in Turkish)4. In fact, this name includes two ancient Armenian components Bay + berd, which respectively mean a den or an impregnable shelter and a stronghold or a fortress. As an ancient fortress, Baberd was mentioned by Movses Khorenatsi as early as in the 5th century.5 Place-names with the ending “berd” have been scattered throughout all Armenia, as Tsamakaberd, Amberd, Vzhnaberd, Kharberd, Baghaberd, etc.6

    Evliya Celebi went further to “reveal” that the original Armenian river name of Jorokh is a distorted form of the Turkish Joui-rouh, which according to him means “the river of the soul”7. In fact, the name “Jorokh” originates from the Armenian verb “tsorel”- “tsorogh” (flowing) in which the initial “ts” has been transformed to “j” through sound interchange, a phenomenon peculiar to the Armenian language, as in “tsanatsel > janachel”, and “tskhni > jkhni”8. Evliya Chelebi links to the Persians the name of the town Zarishat,9 which was actually built by the Armenian royal dynasty of Orontids (570 BC-200 BC). He derives the town name of “Akn” from the name of a Byzantine princess “Egin”10; however, “Akn” is a purely Armenian word meaning “eye”, “spring” and “pit”.11 In the place name of “Pertek”, which is a dialectal deformation of the original “Berdak” (a small fortress), Celebi tries to find the Mongolian equivalent for the word “eagle”.12

    It is irrefutable that all the above-mentioned toponyms and others in Armenia have been recorded in historical sources far too earlier than any Turkic or Kurdish elements appeared on the Armenian Highland, which they gradually did only from the 11th century onwards.

    The “corrections” introduced by Celebi were by no means innocent etymological verbosities, but pursued far-reaching purposes of Ottomanizing the newly occupied territories. Evliya Chelebi was a state official, who in addition participated in Ottoman expansionist invasions. Thus, his etimological explanations had clear geopolitical motives.

    Around the middle of the 19th century Turkish authorities decided not only to distort or change the names of Armenian provinces, regions and villages, but to eliminate altogether the name Armenia as well. This policy was pursued especially after the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-1878, when the Armenian Question was included into the agenda of international diplomacy and European powers started exploiting it to derive various concessions from Turkey.

    The government of Sultan Abdul Hamid II substituted the name Armenia with such terms as Kurdistan or Anatolia, fallaciously. Starting from 1880 the name Armenia was forbidden to be used in official documents.13 The Sublime Porte thus wanted to make everyone believe that the Armenian Question did not exist: if there was no Armenia, then there was no Armenian Question.

    The historians are familiar with the plan of solving the Armenian Question with the assistance of England put forward by Kiamil Pasha, the pro-British Ottoman Grand Vizier and Commander-in-chief during the reign of the Sultan Abdul Hamid II:

    “If in Europe we have warmed a serpent (i.e. the Balkan peoples – L.S.) in our bosom, we should not do the same in Asian Turkey. Common sense tells us to do away with all these elements that can pose the same threats to us in the future and become the cause and a tool of foreign interference. Now, today, at least Britain’s interests demand that our territories in Asia Minor be safe from foreign meddling and all sources that may give others a pretext to meddle in our affairs. We, as well as the British not only do not recognize the word “Armenia”, but we must smash to smithereens all jaws which dare to pronounce that word. To reach our sacred goal it is therefore imperative and the state law demands [from us] to make any suspicious elements unfit, sweep forever from the face of the earth this Armenian nation, to annihilate them recklessly and for good” (the emphasis is mine – L.S.).14

    By deliberately distorting them, the Ottoman authorities were ascribing Armenian and Greek place-names to Turkish or Kurdish origin. At that stage, the Kurdish ethnic factor was used by the Ottoman rulers, for the Kurds were not yet viewed as a threat to the Ottoman Empire. Taking advantage of their religious fanaticism, in the 1890s Sultan Abdul Hamid, who was also known as “the father of the Kurds” (Bavê Kurda),15 organized the Armenian massacres through the Hamidiye regiments formed out of Kurdish brigands and the regular Turkish army soldiers.

    During Abdul Hamid’s reign all Turkish and Kurdish resettlements were given new names, which were the names of nomadic tribes or various Ottoman sultans such as Hamidiye, Reshidiye, Aziziye, Mahmoudiye, etc. This policy became especially manifest during the reign of the Young Turks (1908-1918).

    The government of Young Turks also attached great importance to the changing of “non-Muslim” place-names. They replaced many toponyms, some named after the Ottoman Sultans, with their own names such as Enveriye, Shevketiye, Mahmoutshevket-Pasha and the like.16 The “Resolution About the Resettlement of Refugees” (“Iskân-I Muhacirin Nizamnamesi”), a document adopted on May 13, 1913,17 served the specific Young Turk policy of total Turkification. The next step was made by Enver Pasha, the Young Turks’ Minister of War, on January 5, 1916.18

    Enver Pasha’s decree sent to the Turkish military-political authorities demanded that all place-names of Armenian, Greek, Bulgarian and other non-Muslim origins in the Ottoman Empire be transformed into Turkish ones.19 Below is the translation of his Decree (Emirname):

    DECREE

    1. It is important to change into Turkish all names of provinces, regions, villages, mountains and rivers belonging to Armenian, Greek, Bulgarian and other non-Muslim peoples. Making use swiftly of this favorable moment, we beseech your help in carrying out this order.

    2. Cooperating with military commanders and administrative personnel within the boundaries of your jurisdiction, respective lists of name changes should be formed of provinces, regions, villages, etc. and be forwarded to military headquarters as soon as possible. After being studied and approved, these lists of proposed changes should be sent to the Ministry of the Interior and the Communications Ministry for generalization and implementation.

    3. It is imperative that the new names reflect the history of our hard-working, exemplary and praise-worthy military. The glorified events of our present and past war experiences should, by all means, be mentioned. In case this is not possible, names of those who had highly moral principles and who have fallen rendering invaluable services to their country should be remembered; or names should be found that are appropriate to the given area’s specific crop, product, trade or geographical situation.

    Last but not least, teachers at schools in different parts of our Fatherland should find appropriate topics to teach about the given territory’s glorious history, climate, crop, trade and culture. It should be borne in mind that any sudden change of a conventional name into an inconvenient or improper one may bring about the continuation of using the old name by the population. Therefore, new names should be chosen taking all this into consideration. In case such principles cannot be observed, then Ereghli, for example, should be turned into Erikli or Erakli, Gallipoli into Veliboli in order to maintain the roots of old names.

    Enver, Deputy Commander-in-Chief, 23 Kanun-i Evvel, 1331 /1916/

    Inspired by Enver’s decree, the prominent military officer Huseyin Avni (Alparslan) Bey, the author of several articles about the Turkish language and culture, wrote: “If we want to be the owner of our country, then we should turn even the name of the smallest village into Turkish and not leave its Armenian, Greek or Arabic variants. Only in this way can we paint our country with its colors” .20

    As we see, he even goes a step further than his minister by suggesting that Arabic place-names also undergo changes. Enver Pasha’s decree mentioned only “Armenian, Greek, Bulgarian and other non-Muslim peoples”. This testifies to the fact that during the Ottoman period, when the Sultan was considered the spiritual head (Caliph) of all Muslims, the Arabic and Kurdish toponyms were not yet regarded as threatening to the authorities. However, it should be remembered that the overwhelming majority of the names of places where the Kurds moved in Western Armenia were Armenian in origin with, at times, some aspects of local dialectal or foreign linguistic influences. After the Armenian Genocide, these toponyms have been attributed to Kurds.

    During the war, the Armenian, Greek and Bulgarian toponyms were the first to be turned into Turkish. The Antranos caza in Bursa, for example, was turned into Orhanelli, Mikhalich was renamed Karajabey, the village Dimitri into Touran, the Rum village in Chorum into Yeni (new) Chamlejay. But a few months later, on June 15, 1916 the Ottoman Military Headquarters disapproved of these changes arguing that on the new maps these new names were causing confusion in military correspondence.21

    Having been deprived of its original population, Western Armenia continues to lose, along with many other historical and cultural values, its centuries-old Armenian place-names. They are being declared as Kurdish or Turkish. Haroun Tuncel, a Turkish historian, has admitted that “One cannot find in Turkey a scientific work that would deal with the origins of ancient toponyms for the simple reason that the person undertaking such an arduous task should be knowledgeable of the local dialects of several languages, including Persian, Arabic, Armenian, Zaza, Kourmanji, Assyrian-Aramaic, Sumerian and Akkadian… for any name considered Kurdish may well be either Sumerian, Akkadian or Turkish and any name considered Turkish may be either Arabic, Armenian or Akkadian in its origin”.22

    In an article, titled “28 thousand toponyms were changed. Nobody knows which one comes from which language”,23 &#350;. Türker has included among Kurdish names such indisputably Armenian toponyms as Van, Antep (Aintap),24 Kharpet (Kharberd), Erzingan (Erzinjan< Erzen-el-Rum<Artsen-el roum), Kilis (which is a distorted version of the word “Yekeghetsi”, meaning Church), etc25 . It remains a mystery why and how the Muslim Kurds came to name their settlements Church (Kilis)?

    The process of “nationalization” of toponyms was continued by the Kemalists, who were the ideological successors of the Young Turks. It gained momentum during the Republican period. Starting from 1923 the entire territory of Western Armenia was officially renamed “Eastern Anatolia”.26 After the Kurdish rebellions in 1925, 1927 and 1936 in eastern part of the Republic of Turkey, the Turkish authorities started renaming the Kurdish and Zaza settlements as well. As early as 1935, the Interior Minister Shukru Kayan put forward a draft resolution to rename Dersim into Tunceli. It is worth noticing that in February 2009 Sharafettin Halis, a deputy in the Turkish Parliament from the Democratic Society Party (DTP), proposed that Tunceli be granted its former name of Dersim; he argued that people cannot forget this name as it has become sacred for them and was used both in their daily lives and in their songs, tales and novels. The proposal was, however, labeled a “manifestation of separatism” by the Turkish Minister of Justice.27

    In 1940, the Turkish government issued a circular letter (No. 8589) which called for changing into Turkish all toponyms in foreign languages or with foreign roots, but the outbreak of World War II temporarily impeded its implementation.

    A special article devoted to the changes of toponyms was included in the 1949 Provincial administrative law (II Idaresi Kanunu). Furthermore, a “Specialized Organization for Renaming of Toponyms” (“Ad De&#287;i&#351;tirme &#304;htisas Kurulu”) was initiated in 1957. This organization renamed 653 settlements in Erzurum, 169 in Adana, 366 in Erzinjan (Yerznka), 224 in Adyaman, 70 in Moughla, 88 in Afion, 70 in Eskishehir, 297 in Moush, 374 in Aghre (Ararat), 279 in Gaziantepe, 24 in Nevshehir, 99 in Amasia, 167 in Giresoun (Kerasoun), 647 in Nighdeh, 193 in Ankara, 343 in Gyumushkhaneh, 134 in Ordou, 168 in Antalya, 128 in Hakkari, 105 in Rizeh, 101 in Ardvin, 117 in Hatay (Alexandretta/Iskenderun), 117 in Sakaria, 69 in Ayden, 185 in Sparta, 110 in Balekesir, 112 in Ichel, 392 in Siirt (Sghert), 32 in Bilejik, 21 in Istanbul, 59 in Sinop, 247 in Bingyol (Byurakn), 68 in Izmir (Smyrna), 406 in Sivas (Sebastia), 236 in Bitlis, 398 in Kars, 19 in Tekirdagh, 182 in Bolou, 295 in Kastamonu, 245 in Tokat (Eudokia), 49 in Bourdour, 86 in Kayseri (Cesaria), 390 in Trebizond, 136 in Boursa, 35 in Krklarel, 273 in Dersim, 53 in Chanakkaleh, 39 in Kershehir, 389 in Shanli Ourfa (Ourha), 76 in Chankere, 26 in Kojayeli, 47 in Oushal, 555 in Chorum, 217 in Malatia, 156 in Zongouldak, 20 in Edirne, 647 in Mardin, 555 in Diarbekir, 83 in Manisa, 383 in Elazegh (Kharberd), and 105 in Kahraman Marash.28

    After research work on 75.000 toponyms, the “Specialized Organization” changed 28.000 names, among which 12.000 were village names. According to H. Tunçel’s estimates, 12,211 villages were renamed during the period of 1940-2000, which constitutes approximately 35 per cent of the villages.29

    Turkish historian Ayse Hyur writes that during the reign of the Democratic Party ugly, humiliating, insulting or derisive names, even if they were Turkish, were subjected to changes. Village names with lexical components meaning red (kizil), bell (çan), church (kilise) were all changed. To do away with “separatist notions”, the Arabic, Persian, Armenian, Kurdish, Georgian, Tatar, Circassian, and Laz village names were also changed.30 From 1981 to 1983, the names of settlements on the Eastern and Western parts of the Black Sea also underwent changes.

    Bilir, the author of “Let Tunceli Be Named Dersim”, in an article published in the August 19, 2009 issue of “Bir Gun” daily, writes that, besides giving new names to the settlements, the Turkish authorities altered also the phonetic pronunciations of those old names to make them sound like Turkish words, as, for instance, Chinchiva to Shenyouva. This method of changing a toponym, as has already been mentioned previously, was suggested by Enver Pasha as early as 1916: “…change Ereghli into Erikli or Erakli, Gallipoli into Velipolou in order to maintain the old name roots”.31 This phenomenon, however, has deeper roots. Similar cases of Ottomanization-Turkification of Armenian toponyms were present in the 16th century Ottoman Geographical Registers.32 It is ironic to note that in the ongoing process of turning the so called Kurdish toponyms into Turkish ones some toponyms have been restored to their imaginary old Turkish versions, which are actually ancient and medieval Armenian place-names. Thus Pertag (Berd+ak) has been renamed Pertek, allegedly its old Turkish name, Esper (Sper)>Ispir, Erdekhan>Ardahan, Shakh>Shatakh, Kers>Kars, Zedkan> Elishkirt, which is the phonetically deformed variant of Alashkert<Vagharsh+a+kert, Geghi>Keghi, in both of which we have the word Gyugh-Gegh meaning village, Guimguim>Vardo, etc. 33

    Gul’s statement in Bitlis about Norshin had controversial repercussions among the country’s various political parties. Devlet Bahçeli, the leader of the opposition National Movement Party in particular, criticized Gul for it. Prime Minister Erdogan responded reminding Bahçeli that Manazkert, for example, was an Armenian toponym. “Are you more patriotic than Alparslan? Mustafa Kemal didn’t change the name Ankara when he made it the capital of the country. The name Ankara is of Latin origin. Are you saying you are more patriotic than Mustafa Kemal?” asked Erdogan.34 We believe this admission by Turkey’s Prime Minister should be attributed to the Turkish authorities’ desire to evade an awkward situation and show the world that they are democratic and open-minded. Besides, the statement might have been made to deter the Kurdish territorial claims.

    Modern Turkish historiography has greatly contributed and supported this systematic program of changing, distorting and appropriating “non-Muslim” toponyms in Turkey. Upon the publication of the works of chroniclers and archival materials of the earlier period of the Ottoman Era, Turkish historians have made use of their rich stock of falsifications and have distorted Armenian toponyms en masse.35

    Armenia or Ermenistan have been coarsely and retroactively replaced with “Eastern Anatolia”. The following highlights one such example. In his “Jihan Numa” Kyatib Celebi, a famous Ottoman chronicler of the 17th century, had a special chapter, titled “About the Country Called Armenia”. When, however, this book was republished in 1957 its modern Turkish editor H. Selen changed this title into “Eastern Anatolia”.36 The fact, however, is that Armenia together with its boundaries was unequivocally mentioned in the works of Ottoman historians and chroniclers. An excerpt from the said chapter of Kyatib Celebi’s Jihan Numa illustrates clearly the falsifications of modern Turkish historians.

    “Hamdullah says. The Armenia vilayet consists of two parts – Greater and Lesser. …Greater Armenia extends well into Iran and is known by the name of Touman Akhlat. It borders the Lesser Armenia, Rum, Diarbekir, Kurdistan, Azarbaijan37 and Aran. Its length covers the area from Erzen-el-Rum (Erzurum) to Salmas, while its width – from Aran to the end of Akhlat vilayet. Its capital is Akhlat. In my opinion Greater Armenia at present consists of the Van and Erzurum vilayets, while Lesser Armenia – of Adana and Marash eyalets. In the Takvim-el-Bouldan,38 the following cities are mentioned in Armenia: Elbistan,39 Adana, Arjesh, Azarbaijan, Bitlis, Barda, Bilekan, Tiflis, Akhlat, Debil, Sultaniye, Sis, Tarsus, Malatia, Van, Vostan, Moush, Erzen-el-Rum and Malazkert”.40

    While Celebi mentioned only part of the territory of Armenia,41 the fact that the Ottoman historian admitted the existence of Armenia as a country speaks for itself.

    Armenia is referred to by other Ottoman authors of the 17th century as well. The official court historian Evliya Celebi mentions it as Armenistan.42 Munejjim Basi,43 another Turkish historian of the same century, also wrote about the vast country of Armenia, including into it the cities of Kherd Bert (i.e. Kharberd – L.S.), Erzinkan, Moush, Egin (Akn), Melazjerd (i.e. Manazkert), Bitlis, Akhlat, Arjesh, Vostan, Shirvan and the capital Debil (i.e. Dvin).44 From the descriptions of these historians, it becomes evident that in the 17th century official Ottoman historiography recognized the existence of the occupied Greater Armenia, and acknowledged it by its internationally accepted name of Armenia (Ermenistan). While Cilicia with its Adana and Marash eyalets was recognized by them as Lesser Armenia. Thus, in the 17th century when the Armenian Question was not as yet included into the agenda of international diplomacy, the terms Anatolia or Eastern Anatolia were never used to indicate Armenia. Furthermore, the “Islamic World Map” of the 16th century45 and other Ottoman maps of the 18th and 19th centuries have clearly indicated Armenia (Ermenistan) on a specific territory as well as its cities.46

    Armenia (&#1575;&#1585;&#1605;&#1606;&#1587;&#1578;&#1575;&#1606;) and Anatolia (&#1575;&#1606;&#1575;&#1591;&#1608;&#1604;&#1740;) are clearly differentiated in the map published in Istanbul in 1803-1804 (see Map 2).47 The Ottoman authors were using the term Armenia till the end of the 19th century. One example is Osman Nuri, the historian of the second half of the 19th century, who mentions Armenia repeatedly in his three-volume “Abdul Hamid and the Period of His Reign.”48

    It is more than obvious that the Ottoman historians and chroniclers in contrast to the modern Turkish ones, knew very well Armenia’s location and did not “confuse” it with Anatolia.

    The word Anatolia means “sunrise” or “east” in Greek. This name was given to the Asia Minor peninsula approximately in the 5th or 4th centuries B.C. During the Ottoman era the term Anadolou included the north-eastern vilayets of Asia Minor with Kyotahia as its center.49 The numerous European, Ottoman, Armenian, Russian, Persian, Arabic, Georgian and other primary sources did not confuse the term Armenia with Anatolia. This testifies, inter alia, to the fact that even after the loss of its statehood the Armenian nation still constituted a majority in its homeland, which was recognized by Ottoman occupiers as well.

    Therefore, it is very sad to witness today certain Armenian historians of the Diaspora and even diplomats and analysts in Armenia, who have started to substitute the term “Western Armenia” with that of the ersatz “Eastern Anatolia”. These people have willingly and submissively undertaken the task of enacting Abdul Hamid’s decree of 1880. Incredibly, some Diasporan historians are even using the term “Anatolia” to indicate the entire Armenian Highland.50

    Even if this ersatz term of Eastern Anatolia has somehow been put into circulation in Western scientific circles under the influence of systematic Turkish lobbying and falsifications and at times also due to the lack of knowledge, it is unacceptable for us, because the substitution of Western Armenia with the term “Eastern Anatolia” would mean voluntary renunciation of our homeland, rejection of our centuries-old historical and cultural heritage, denial of the Armenian Genocide, burial into oblivion of its consequences and, last but not least, rendering support to the Turkish negationist position towards the rights of the Armenian nation to Western Armenia.51

    Conclusion

    The Turkish authorities realize that Armenian toponyms are the product of a civilization spanning several millenia civilization and vivid witnesses of the indigenous presence of Armenians in Western Armenia. The extermination of the native population, however, did not stop with the Armenian Genocide; it was followed by the destruction of Armenian historical and cultural heritage, including the Armenian toponyms.

    The policy of Turkification of toponyms in the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Turkey has gone through several stages:

    Up to the end of the 19th century, Turkish officials and historians still continued to use the names “Armenia” or “Ermenistan”. At the same time, they were appropriating and changing the place names of occupied territories.
    After the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878, when the Armenian Question became an international issue, the Turkification of Armenian as well as other Christian toponyms has been carried out more consistently.
    This process intensified during the Young Turks and the Kemalist regimes, when a full-scale Turkification policy of toponyms targeted all non-Turkic nations.
    Finally, during the present fourth stage, decades after eliminating Western Armenia of its native Armenian population, the Turkish authorities, fearing the potential threat posed by the Kurdish factor, have started to reshape their policy by partially restoring the original Armenian names of certain settlements in order to counter their Kurdish variants. However, they try to ascribe Turkish roots to these Armenian toponyms.
    All this demonstrates that falsification of toponyms has been and still remains an important constituent part of Turkish demographic policies.

    Toponyms are not only linguistic facts, but also accurate and objective historical evidence. The ancient Armenian place-names are explicit and emphatic linguistic evidence, which reveal the entire truth about the true native owners of the Armenian Highland. This is why the protection, maintenance and restoration of Armenian toponyms have invaluable strategic significance today.

    ——————————————————————————–

    [*] This is an updated version of L. Sahakyan’s article, which was first published by the ARARAT Center for Strategic Research in Armenian and Russian, respectively on September 18, 2009 (http://blog.ararat-center.org/?p=284) and November 19, 2009 (http://blog.ararat-center.org/?p=331).

    Kadir Konuksever, “Kürt aç&#305;l&#305;m&#305; ve Kürt isimleri”, BBC Türkçe, 12 A&#287;ustos, 2009. https://www.bbc.com/turkce/haberler/2009/08/090812_kurdish_names. &#8617;
    A, Murado&#287;lu, Ahi Mesut ve Nor&#351;in.., Yeni &#351;afak, 11.08.2009&#1417;Enver Alper Güvelin, Nor&#351;in: Psikolojik e&#351;i&#287;in a&#351;&#305;lmas&#305;, &#1043;&#1072;&#1079;&#1077;&#1090;&#1072; Yeni &#351;afak, 16.08.2009&#1417; &#8617;
    For more details refer to L. Sahakyan’s The Toponyms and Demography of Bardzr Haik Provinces of Baberd, Sper and Derzhan in the 16th century Ottoman Register Books {Barts Hayki Baberd. Sper Derzhan gavarneri tekhanunnern u zhokhvrdagrutyuni XVI dari osmanyan ashkharagir matyannerum} published by “Lousakn” Publishers, Yerevan, 2007, pp. 83-84. &#8617;
    Celebi, Evliya: Turkish Sources about Armenia, Armenians and Other Trans-Caucasian Peoples {Turkakan akhbyurneri Hayastani, hayeri yev Andrkovkasi myus zhokhvurdneri masin, Evliya Chelebi} translated into Armenian from the original with a foreword and commentaries by A.Kh. Safrastyan, vol. 3, published by the Arm SSR Academy of Sciences, 1967, p.127. &#8617;
    Movses Khorenatsi, The History of Armenia {Hayots patmutyun}, Yerevan, 1999, p. 104. &#8617;
    For a detailed etimological analysis of Baberd, see L. Sahakyan’ s above mentioned monograph, pp.130-131. &#8617;
    Celebi, Evliya: Turkish Sources… {Turkakan akhbyurneri…}, p.127. &#8617;
    Ajaryan, H.: Armenian Etymological Dictionary {Hayeren atmatakan bararan}, vol. 2, p.469. See also New Wordbook of the Haykazyan Language {Nor bargirk haykazyan lezvi}, vol. 1, Yerevan, State Univ.y Publ. House, p.1026. &#8617;
    Celebi, Evliya: Turkish Sources… {Turkakan akhbyurneri}, vol.3, p. 120. &#8617;
    Ibid, p.155. &#8617;
    Ajaryan, H. Armenian Etymological Dictionary {Hayeren atmatakan bararan}, Yerevan, 1971, State Univ.y Publ. House, vol. 1, p. 106-108. &#8617;
    Celebi, Evliya: Turkish Sources…{Turkakan akhbyurneri…}, vol. 3, p. 157. &#8617;
    Modern History of Armenia in the Works of Foreign Authors {Novaya istoriya Armenii b trudax sovremennix zarubezhnix avtorov}, edited by R. Sahakyan, Yerevan, 1993, p.15 (in Russian). &#8617;
    Tserents, National Theory: “The Ottoman Monarchy, Turkish Armenians and Russian Armenians” {“Azgayin tesutyun, Osmanyan Inknakalutyun, tachkahayk yev rusahayk”}, Pords, Tpkhis, 1897, N VII-VIII, pp. 204-205. Modern History of Armenia in the Works of Foreign Authors, p.17 (in Russian). ) &#8617;
    Frat N., “Vulpes Vulpes Kurdistanica,” Günlük, 17.8.2009, (www.gunlukgazetesi.com). &#8617;
    Frat N., Ibid. &#8617;
    Ay&#351;e Hür, “Tez zamanda yer isimleri de&#287;i&#351;tirile,” Taraf , 01.03.2009. &#8617;
    Modern Turkish historian Aishe Hyur, by the way, writes that the measures taken to systematically change non-Turkish names were sped up during World War I (“Bin Yerin &#304;smi De&#287;i&#351;ti, Hangi &#304;sim Hangi Dile ait?” www.kenthaber.com/Haber/Genel/Dosya/gundem/28-bin-yerin-ismi-de&#287;i&#351;ti). &#8617;
    Ba&#351;bakanl&#305;k Osmanl&#305; Ar&#351;ivi, Dâhiliye Nezâreti, &#304;UM, nr. 48/17, lef: 2. M. &#350;ükrü Hanio&#287;lu, Enver Pa&#351;a, DIA, XI, &#304;stanbul, 1995, ss. 261-264. A. Yüksel, Do&#287;u Karadeniz Ara&#351;t&#305;rmalar&#305;, &#304;stanbul, 2005, ss. 21-22. &#8617;
    H. Tirebolulu {Huseyin Avni} Alparslan, Trabzon &#304;li Lâz m&#305;? Türk mü?, Giresun, 1339. s. 17. &#8617;
    Aktar A, “Yer isimlerini Turkle&#351;tirmek…”, Taraf , 23 Ekim, 2009. &#8617;
    Türker &#350;., “28 bin yerin ismi de&#287;i&#351;ti, Hangi ismin hangi dile ait oldu&#287;u bilinmiyor!”, Vatan, 16.08.2009, www.esoyle.com/2009/08/30/28-bin-yerin-ismi-de&#287;i&#351;ti. &#8617;
    Türker &#350;., op. cit. &#8617;
    The original toponyms are given in parentheses. &#8617;
    Refer to the same source. &#8617;
    Soviet Armenian Encyclopedia {Sovetakan haykakan hanragitaran}, Yerevan, 1974, p.327. Also A Concise Armenian Encyclopedia {Haykakay hamarot hanragitaran}, Yerevan, 1990, pp. 192-193. &#8617;
    Bilir O., “Tunceli, Dersim Olsun” Tekilfini Ekimde yeniden,” Bir Gün, 2009, 19 Agustos. Refer also to www.birgun.net &#8617;
    Bilir O., Ibid&#8232;&#8617;
    Tunçel H., “Türkiye’de &#304;smi De&#285;i&#351;tirilen Köyler,” Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Firat Universitesi, 2000, cilt 10, say&#305; 2. &#8617;
    Türker S., “28 bin yerin ismi de&#287;i&#351;ti…,”, Vatan, 16 Agustos, 2009. &#8617;
    See Yuksel A., Dogu Karadeniz Arastirmalari, Istanbul, 2005, s. 21-22. &#8617;
    For the details, see Lusine Sahakyan, Toponyms and Demography of Bardzer Hayk Provinces of Baberd, Sper and Derjan in the 16th century Ottoman Register Books {Barts Hayki Baberd. Sper Derzhan gavarneri tekhanunnern u zhokhvrdagrutyuni XVI dari osmanyan ashkharagir matyannerum}, pp. 77-108. &#8617;
    O. Bilir, “Tunceli, Dersim Olsun” Tekilfini Ekimde yeniden,” Bir Gün, 19 Agustos 2009. Refer also to www.birgun.net. &#8617;
    “Erdo&#287;an Bahçeli’ye yeni sert sözlerle yüklendi,” Hürriyet, 10 Kas&#305;m, 2009. &#8617;
    See L. Sahakyan, Toponyms and Demography, op. cit., pp. 71-108, 130-135. &#8617;
    For details refer to A. Papazian’s Turkish Documents about Armenia and Armenians (XVI-XIX cc) {Turkakan vaveragreri Hayastani yev hayeri masin (16-19-rd darer)}, Yerevan, 1999, p. 125. &#8617;
    Azerbaijan – Atrpatakan, a province of Iran. &#8617;
    Takvim-al-Buldan” is the Statistical Data- book of Abul Fida, an Arab historiographer and geographer. It served as a source book for Kyatib Calabi (Turkish Sources about Armenia, Armenians and Other Trans-Caucasian Peoples {Turkakan akhbyurneri Hayastani, hayeri yev Andrkovkasi myus zhokhvurdneri masin,, vol. 2, Yerevan, p. 258). &#8617;
    Elbistan-Albistan, a town in Cilicia in the Zeytun caza of the Marash province. &#8617;
    Turkish Sources…{Turkakan akhbyurneri…}, vol.2; Kyatib Celebi, Jihan Numa, pp. 29-30. &#8617;
    Refer also to A. Papazian’s Turkish Documents about Armenia and Armenians (XVI-XIX cc) {Turkakan vaveragreri Hayastani yev hayeri masin (16-19-rd darer)}, pp.112-114, 121-122. &#8617;
    &#1069;&#1074;&#1083;&#1080;&#1103; &#1063;&#1077;&#1083;&#1077;&#1073;&#1080;, &#1050;&#1085;&#1080;&#1075;&#1072; &#1087;&#1091;&#1090;&#1077;&#1096;&#1077;&#1089;&#1090;&#1074;&#1080;&#1103;. &#1055;&#1088;&#1077;&#1076;&#1080;&#1089;&#1083;&#1086;&#1074;&#1080;&#1077; &#1040;. &#1055;. &#1043;&#1088;&#1080;&#1075;&#1086;&#1088;&#1100;&#1077;&#1074;&#1072;. &#1055;&#1088;&#1080;&#1084;&#1077;&#1095;&#1072;&#1085;&#1080;&#1103; &#1080; &#1082;&#1086;&#1084;&#1084;&#1077;&#1085;&#1090;&#1072;&#1088;&#1080;&#1080; &#1040;. &#1055;. &#1043;&#1088;&#1080;&#1075;&#1086;&#1088;&#1100;&#1077;&#1074;&#1072;, &#1040;. &#1044;. &#1046;&#1077;&#1083;&#1090;&#1103;&#1082;&#1086;&#1074;&#1072;. &#1042;&#1099;&#1087;&#1091;&#1089;&#1082; 2, &#1048;&#1079;&#1076;. “”&#1053;&#1072;&#1091;&#1082;&#1072;”, &#1052;&#1086;&#1089;&#1082;&#1074;&#1072;, 1979, &#1089;. 102. &#8617;
    Refer to Munejjim Basi: Turkish Sources…}, vol.2, p.183. &#8617;
    Ibid., pp.199-200. In Arabic and Turkish sources the toponym Dvin has been distorted and written in various ways like Debil (refer to vol. 2 of Dictionary of Toponyms of Armenia and the Adjacent Regions, Yerevan, 1988, p. 68 ) Douin, Dabil, Adabin and Douviy (refer to S. Vartanyan’s The Capitals of Armenia {Hayastani mayrakakhaknere}, Yerevan, 1995, p. 109.) &#8617;
    “The Islamic World Map” was drawn in the 1570s. Its diameter is 28.5 cm, and it is kept in the Bodlian Library, Oxford, manusc. Var.317 f9v-10r (Refer to R. Galchian’s “Armenia in World Cartography”, Yerevan, 2005, p.148. &#8617;
    The Second Map of the “Mediterranean Region” (reprinted in R. Galchian, ibid., p. 228). &#8617;
    “Asian Turkey” was printed in 1803/1804. Size: 72×54 cm, British Library, London-OIOC 14999, vol. 2 (2), f.18. The second map in “The Mediterranean Region”, size: 80×58 cm, British Library, London-OIOC 14999, vol. 2 (2), f.5.,”The Ottoman Country”, published in1867, size:42×29 cm, The British Library, London-Maps 42.d.1, f.2 (Refer to R. Galchian’s monograph, ibid. pp. 226, 240 and 246). &#8617;
    The Turkish Sources {Turkakan aghbyurner}. Vol. 4. Transl. from the original by A. Kh. Safrastyan and G. H. Santurjyan. Yerevan, 1972, pp. 126, 131, 133, 136, 165, 167, 172, 175, 180, 184, 188, 190£ &#8617;
    Soviet Armenian Encyclopedia {Sovetakan haykakan hanragitaran}, vol.1, Yerevan, 1974, p. 373. For details about Turkish attempts to change the place name of “Western Armenia” with that of “Eastern Anatolia” see Zograbyan L. N., {Orfografia Armyanskogo Nagoriya}, Yerevan, 1979, p. 14-15. See also E. Danielyan’s article titled “Issues of Ancient Armenian History in Historiology” {“Hin Hayastani patmutyan hayetsakargayin himnahartseri patmagrutyan mej”}, published in Patma-banasirakan Handes (Historico-Philological Magazine), 2003, N3, pp. 30-37, as well as his article titled “Armenia and Armenian Geographical Names: A Scientific Assignment to Protect the Armenian Natural and Historical Environment” {Hayasann u haykakan tekhanunneri, hayots bnapatmakan mijavayri pashtpanutyan gitakan aradzadrank”}, published in VEM, an all-Armenian magazine, 2009, N1 (26), pp. 13-15. &#8617;
    Ronald Grigor Suny, Looking Toward Ararat: Armenia in Modern History, Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1993. The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times, vol. 1, New York, St. Martin’s Press, 1997, pp. 22, 26, 37. Ayvazyan A.: The History of Armenia as Presented in American Historiography, a critical survey, Yerevan, 1998, pp. 37-40. &#8617;
    Refer to Armen Ayvazyan’s “Western Armenia vs. Eastern Anatolia”, Europe and Orient (Journal of the Institute Tchobanian, Paris), No. 4, 2007.

  • Three Azerbaijani Soldiers Killed Near Karabakh

    Three Azerbaijani Soldiers Killed Near Karabakh

    67D99B4D 9488 48C5 9AC0 23CEC0C32129 mw270 s

    February 18, 2010
    BAKU — Three Azerbaijani soldiers were killed today after exchanging fire with Armenian armed forces near the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region, RFE/RL’s Azerbaijani Service reports.

    Azerbaijan’s Defense Ministry confirmed the deaths and said another soldier was wounded as a result of the shooting, which is a violation of a ceasefire agreement between the two forces.

    The ministry did not say exactly where the fighting between Azerbaijani and Armenian forces took place. A ministry spokesman said the Armenian side also suffered casualties.

    News agencies reported earlier today that Armenian forces shelled Azerbaijani positions in the Agdam, Terter, and Goranboy districts. Najmeddin Sadikhov, the chief of Staff of Azerbaijan’s Armed Forces, told the ANS TV station that Azerbaijan’s army responded to the shelling.

    Armenia and Azerbaijan fought a six-year war over Nagorno-Karabakh that ended in 1994 with Armenian forces in control of the disputed territory and seven other Azerbaijani districts.

    https://www.rferl.org/a/Three_Azerbaijani_Soldiers_Killed_Near_NagornoKarabakh/1962175.html
  • TURKISH & TURKIC AMERICANS LAUNCH JOINT ACTION ALERTS AGAINST H.RES. 252

    TURKISH & TURKIC AMERICANS LAUNCH JOINT ACTION ALERTS AGAINST H.RES. 252

    Fallacious and devious resolution, penned and rammed through the U.S. Congress by the Armenian lobby, seen as a serious threat that, if passed, can derail amicable Turkey-USA relation and hurt American interests in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Middle East, the Caucasus, the Balkans and Central Asia.

    ***

    The Armenian lobby and its supporters in Congress have introduced another “Armenian Genocide Resolution,” similar to the resolutions in previous years. H.Res.252 has been scheduled for a vote at the House Foreign Affairs Committee on March 4, 2010 .

    Turkish Coalition Of America (TCA), The Assembly Of Turkish American Associations (ATAA), The Federation Of Turkish American Societies (FTAA) and U.S. Azeris Network (USAN) all urged their members to educate their representatives via letters, phone calls, and visits. Two action alerts are launched for this purpose.

    The Hill newspaper today quotes the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) as “very confident” that the so-called Armenian genocide resolution would pass the House Foreign Affairs Committee and that it has “very strong prospects for passage” on the House floor.

    ANCA, which has been lobbying Congress for the Resolution’s passage, is the same organization whose recent National Chairman Mourad Topalian was indicted and sentenced to over three years in prison by a Ohio Federal Court for being part of a terrorist network that organized the bombing of the Turkish Center in New York and other violent attacks against Turks. ANCA awarded the convicted terrorist the “Freedom Award” for his “unique brand of leadership in driving forward and promoting Armenian history and the cause of the Armenian nation.”

    TCA invitation to action reminds concerned citizens to “…tell your member of Congress: ‘Enough is Enough.’ Write to your member of Congress TODAY to urge him or her to stand for reconciliation, fairness and truth and vote “No” on H.Res.252…”

    To send a pre-written letter to one’s representative, one is urged to visit the TURKISH COALITION OF AMERICA (TCA) ACTION ALERT page:

    U.S. Azeris Network (USAN) also launched an action alert. One is urged to log in and send a message by clicking the link:

    In addition to sending a letter to one’s representative, one is also encouraged to organize visits with one’s member of Congress and staff at his/her district office and raise one’s concerns and objections on the issue in person. For further information, one can visit

    TCA: www.turkishcoalitionofamerica.org (action alert)

    ATAA: www.ataa.org (articles by historians and experts)

    FTAA : www.ftaa.org (community initiatives)

    USAN: www.USAzeris.org (action alert)

    www.ethocide.com : For photos of armed-to-the-teeth Armenian murderers during WWI and their Turkish victims to demolish the myth of “poor, helpless, unarmed Armenian” myth

    www.turkla.com and www.historyoftruth.com , www.tallarmeniantale.com : for articles elucidating malicious mass deception for political gain (ETHOCIDE) by the Armenian lobby since WWI

    https://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2010/01/2993-second-open-letter-to-president.html : for the U.S. Congress’ own records refuting the Armenian deception and distortions

    And many other websites for which links are provided at these sites. Below is a typical letter that can be presented to one’s representative at the U.S. Congress.

    ***

    SUBJECT: VOTE FOR AMERICA, NOT ARMENIA! VOTE “NO” ON H.RES. 252 !

    Dear Congressman/woman,

    H.Res. 252 has been scheduled for a vote in at the House Foreign Affairs Committee on March 4, 2010. This Resolution is seeking to validate the Armenian allegation of genocide against Turkey. I strongly urge you NOT to become a co-sponsor of this resolution and to vote AGAINST it, should it come to a vote.

    Similar resolutions have been introduced in the past and have caused nothing but harm to US interests, while deeply offending Americans of Turkish descent. H.Res. 252 will be no different.

    THE RESOLUTION WILL SEVERELY UNDERMINE PROTOCOLS AND PEACE EFFORTS

    The Resolution will severely undermine ongoing bilateral efforts between Turkey and Armenia to establish diplomatic relations, as well as economic and political ties. The recently signed protocols between the two countries also include the forming of a joint historical commission to study the tragic events during World War I and reach a common understanding. Turkish Americans overwhelmingly support this rapprochement.

    WORLD-RENOWN HISTORIANS REJECT ARMENIANS CLAIMS EMBODIED IN H.RES. 252

    The proponents of these resolutions frequently allege a consensus among scholars that the events of 1915 in the Ottoman Empire were genocide. The fact is that there is no consensus on this issue and many historians do not accept the genocide thesis. They include internationally acclaimed scholars of World War I and the Middle East, such as Bernard Lewis, Norman Stone, Andrew Mango, David Fromkin, Guenter Lewy, Pierre Nora, Malcolm Yapp and Justin McCarthy, to name a few.

    H.RES. 252 IS FALLACIOUS AND DECEPTIVE

    The resolution seeks to legislate history based on incomplete, partisan and falsified information. While portrayed as “non-binding,” the Resolution will create high emotions among Turks and Armenians and prejudice the continued study and understanding of the Ottoman Armenian tragedy by endorsing a one-sided narrative.

    More menacingly, Armenian lobbyists openly proclaim that these resolutions are but a stepping stone to eventual reparations and land claims against the Republic of Turkey, which did not even exist at the time. Thus, passing these resolutions will hardly end this contentious debate.

    GENOCIDE VERDICTS RESERVED FOR COMPETENT TRIBUNALS, NOT POLITICIANS

    If pronouncing convictions of the high crime of genocide was to have been left to politicians, the United Nations would not have given authority exclusively to the International Court of Justice. However, it is precisely because of the grave implications of a genocide charge that a special legal process has been established to prosecute it, and the United States adopted this process when it ratified the U.N. Genocide Convention in 1987. With resolutions of this nature, Congress is usurping its power and creating a dangerous precedent.

    To quarrel with a genocide characterization — the crime of crimes – is not to deny lesser crimes or atrocities. In fact, the Ottoman government itself prosecuted and convicted nearly 1,400 individuals, executing scores, including a provincial governor, for crimes committed against Armenians.

    HALF A MILLION MUSLIM DEATHS CAUSED BY ARMENIANS SIMPLY IGNORED

    One of my key objections to H.Res. 252 is its lack of reference to the nearly 2.5 million Muslims of the Ottoman Empire who perished during the same period of time. Among them are about half a million Ottoman Muslims in Eastern Anatolia whose tragic ends had come in the well documented massacres and ethnic cleansing committed directly or assisted by Armenian rebels. Muslim losses and suffering are ignored or outright denied by the proponents of this legislation. This is selective morality bordering on racism.

    PASSING H.RES. 252 WOULD MAKE A MOCKERY OF THE U.S. CONGRESS’ OWN RECORDS

    What is perhaps most ironic of all is the fact that if the fallacy and deception in H.Res. 252 is approved, then the U.S. Congress would be denying its own reports, resolution, and records dating back to 1920 and 1922 refuting Armenian claims of systematic annihilation (since the term genocide did not exit back then and invented decades later.) US recognition of a bogus genocide and thus legislating falsified version of history into law, to appease the arrogant Armenian lobby would be a travesty scholarship, critical thinking, and free speech, making a mockery of the U.S. Congress’ own records, as the following among many other such documents, clearly refute Armenian claims once and for all:

    a- “American Military Mission to Armenia” (General Harbord) Report 1920 and the Annex Report Nat. Archives 184.021/175 –which does not mention any “race extermination” but, on the contrary, refers to “…refinements of cruelty by Armenians to Muslims…”

    b- Joint U.S. CONGRESS RESOLUTION NO. 192, APRIL 22, 1922 relative to the activities of Near East Relief ending 31 December 1921 which has unanimously resolved that a total of 1,414,000 Armenians were alive (which makes killing of 1.5 million Armenians an impossibility, since the total Armenian population was around 1.5 million at the time.)

    c- George Montgomery, a member of the U.S. delegation at the Paris Conference, had presented a detailed tabulation in 1919, showing a total of 1,104,000 Armenians alive, apart from those who had already immigrated to other countries.

    ARMENIAN NARRATIVES: THE ONLY CASE IN THE WORLD WHERE THE DEAD MULTIPLY OVER THE YEARS

    d- 29 March 1919 report of the Paris Conference subcommittee on atrocities, chaired by the U.S. secretary of State Lansing, lists Armenian losses as “…more than 200,000…” Even this number is exaggerated as they got their information from the Armenian church, not exactly an impartial source. The Turkish Historical Society documented the deaths of 54,000 Armenians using Ottoman police reports field on site, of which number only about 8,400 are reported as victims of massacres based on police reports in Ottoman archives. The paragraphs a, b, and c jointly point to the THS number being closer to reality.

    Who, then may have jacked this number of Armenian casualties from the original 54,000 first to 200,000 in March 1919, and then to 600,000 in May 1919 (in a poster created by Armenians soliciting aid from American donors), and finally to the current 1.5 million even higher? Take a guess!

    H.RES 252 UNDERMINES AMERICAN NATIONAL INTERESTS AND SECURITY

    H.Res 252 undermines American national interests and security, as it will damage US-Turkish relations. Turkey is a key ally of the United States and an indispensable partner to the Unites States efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, helping the United States and the international community to combat terrorism and build security in the region. At a time when the United States is seeking to improve relations with the world, H. Res. 252 singles out a genuine historical controversy and turns it into an affront against our valued ally Turkey.

    H.Res. 252 serves no contemporary US policy purpose, dispenses dubiously selective morality in response to special interest lobbying, hurts American national interests, and the principles of fairness and justice. Today, America is fighting two wars, faces an economic crisis of historical proportions and depends on the good-will and support of nations like Turkey. I urge you to put national interest ahead of special interest and respectfully ask you NOT to support and…

    VOTE FOR AMERICA, NOT ARMENIA!

    VOTE “NO” on H.Res. 252 !

  • Sargsyan Urges Gül to ‘Make a Big Step Forward’

    Sargsyan Urges Gül to ‘Make a Big Step Forward’

    Tuesday, 09 February 2010

    Tert.am — RA President Serzh Sargsyan sent a formal letter to his Turkish counterpart, Abdullah Gül. The letter reads as follows:

    “Your Excellency,

    “Travelling over Turkey’s air territory, I am sending my greetings to you and people of neighbouring Turkey.

    “Our initiative to normalize Armenian-Turkish relations is at the centre of the international community’s attention. This period is, in fact, a historical one, and not only we, but also the whole world understands that. The efforts made by regional powers for the improvement of bilateral relations go beyond any appreciation. I am sure that it would be hard to see progress without their intervention.

    “At the same time, I believe that despite the extent friendly states are interested in a positive outcome for the [normalization] process, they will not be able to do what our two nations can do.

    “Mr. President,

    “I think you will agree that the main role of breaking stereotypes that Armenian and Turkish people have toward each other and establishing an atmosphere of mutual trust is reserved for authorities. It was only due to faith in our work, and being resolute and principled that we can achieve results.

    “Otherwise, when talk and actions contradict each other, it brings about distrust and skepticism, opening up a wide [playing] field for those who are against this process. We should comprehend that time, in this case, does not contribute to the process but rather deprives it of meaning.

    “If we have, up till now, succeeded in bringing our bilateral contact to such a level where the vision of building normal relations between our countries becomes more visible and tangible, then today it is high time to be decisive, [and] to make a big step forward, passing on a stable and secure region for generations to come.

    “Your Excellency, please accept my deepest respects.”

  • “Oh, what a tangled web we weave,

    “Oh, what a tangled web we weave,

    When first we practice to deceive!”

    [sassoun@pacbell.net]

    Publisher, The California Courier

    sassounian31

    The title of this article, taken from Walter Scott’s epic poem, the Marmion, aptly describes the web of deceit weaved by Turkey’s leaders in seeking to create the false impression of wanting to normalize relations with Armenia.

    Under the guise of opening the border and establishing diplomatic relations with Armenia, Turkish officials actually intended to: 1) extract concessions from Armenia – returning Karabagh (Artsakh) to Azerbaijan, forming a historical commission to review the facts of the Genocide, and blocking territorial demands from Turkey; 2) prevent the acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide by third countries, particularly the United States; and 3) generate a positive image in order to facilitate Turkey’s entry into the European Union.

    If Turkey was sincere in its expressed desire to open the border with Armenia, it could have done so just as easily and quickly as it did when closing it in 1993. There was no need for lengthy negotiations, convoluted protocols, and parliamentary ratification. Furthermore, rather than demanding concessions, Turks should have offered inducements to Armenia for agreeing to open the border, because with closed borders, Turkey cannot join the EU.

    Ever since April 22, 2009, when the first concrete step was taken by the Foreign Ministers of Armenia and Turkey by issuing a roadmap for normalizing their relations, Turkish leaders continued to state that they won’t open the border with Armenia without first resolving the Artsakh conflict. Even after signing the Protocols on October 10, 2009 and submitting them to Parliament eleven days later, the Turkish government still insisted that the border would remain closed until Artsakh was returned to Azerbaijan.

    Since none of the major powers supported the precondition on Artsakh, Turkey’s leaders used the January 12, 2010 verdict of Armenia’s Constitutional Court as a new excuse for not ratifying the Protocols in the last four months. Even though the Court ruled that the obligations stipulated by the Protocols complied with the constitution, the Ankara leadership expressed dissatisfaction in order to cover up its intent not to ratify the Protocols. Turkey demanded that the Court “correct” its decision, just because it had blocked the unwarranted interpretations and preconditions of the Turkish side.

    Unable to convince Armenia to meet their demands, Turkish officials approached Russia, the United States, and Switzerland (the mediator on the Protocols) to apply pressure on Armenia “to correct” the Constitutional Court’s decision. Once again, the Turks were rebuffed.

    Last week, Turkey stumbled on a new excuse not to ratify the Protocols — the announcement by Cong. Howard Berman (Dem.-CA), Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, that his panel would take up the Armenian Genocide resolution on March 4.

    Even though the genocide resolution is unrelated to the Protocols, a few days before Cong. Berman’s announcement, Turkey’s new Ambassador to Washington, Namik Tan, warned the U.S. Congress against such a move and boldly predicted that such a resolution would not come up for a vote “this year or anytime in the future.” Amb. Tan’s warning clearly exposed Turkey’s hidden agenda to bury the acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide at every opportunity.

    Now that the genocide resolution is scheduled for a vote, what would the Turks do? They are caught in their own web of deceit! If they rush to ratify the Protocols in order to prevent the adoption of the resolution, they would antagonize their Azeri ally and create internal political turmoil. On the other hand, If they does not ratify the Protocols very soon, there is a high probability that the genocide resolution would receive congressional approval this year.

    Meanwhile, Washington is losing patience with Turkey’s repeated excuses for dragging its feet on the Protocols. In retaliation, the Obama administration could use the genocide resolution as a stick to prod Turkey into ratifying the Protocols. Moreover, Turkey cannot count on much political support from Israel or American-Jewish organizations in order to block the genocide resolution, due to the incessant insults hurled by Prime Minister Erdogan at Israeli leaders over the past year.

    By refusing to ratify the Protocols, Turkey has taken away from the Obama administration its excuse for not acknowledging the Armenian Genocide. Despite his repeated campaign promises, Pres. Obama refrained from using the term Armenian Genocide in his April 24, 2009 statement. He had unwisely adopted the duplicitous Turkish line that third countries should not acknowledge the Armenian Genocide, while Armenia and Turkey were trying to normalize their relations.

    It is noteworthy that when Philip Gordon, Assistant Secretary of State, was asked last week to comment on the likely impact of the Armenian Genocide resolution on the Protocols, he insisted that they be ratified without preconditions. Significantly, he did not use the occasion to express any opposition to the resolution.

    Any attempt by the administration to block the congressional resolution would be highly embarrassing for Pres. Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, since all three as Senators and presidential candidates had issued strong statements in support of acknowledging the Armenian Genocide.

    Since Obama administration officials have repeatedly stated that the Protocols have no preconditions, then there should be no reason for them to object to the adoption of the genocide resolution.

    It should be stated that in normal circumstances there would be no need for further action by the President or Congress on recognition of the Armenian Genocide which is already an acknowledged fact. In 1975 and 1984, the U.S. House of Representatives adopted resolutions recognizing the Genocide and Pres. Reagan acknowledged it in his Presidential Proclamation of 1981. However, in view of Turkey’s devious designs to roll back the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide, it is imperative that the United States government reaffirm its acknowledgment. This would also be an appropriate response to the deceptive Turkish tactics of using the Protocols to extract concessions, under the false pretense of opening the border with Armenia.