:::TurkishPAC:::

By Stanford J. Shaw*

"While six millions Jews were being exterminated by the Nazis, the rescue of some 15,000 Turkish Jews from France, and even of some 100,000 Jews from Eastern Europe might well be considered as relatively insignificant in comparison. It was, however, very significant to the people who were rescued, and above all it showed that, as had been the case for more than five centuries, Turks and Jews continued to help each other in times of great crises." 

The large-scale movement of Jewish refugees to the Ottoman Empire from Spain and Portugal and elsewhere in Europe in the 15th and 16th centuries as a result of persecutions engendered by the Inquisition largely came to an end during the centuries of Ottoman disintegration that followed since the decline of political stability and economic unity within the Ottoman Empire made it impossible for the sultans to provide their Jewish subjects with the same sort of protection against Christian bigotry and persecution within the Empire which had enabled the first great wave of Jewish emigrants to prosper. The Ottoman revival under the stimulus of the 19th century Tanzimat reform era changed all this, however, so that during the last century of Ottoman existence, new influxes of Jewish refugees once again placed the Turks in the forefront of the nations providing refuge and succor to the Jews of Europe.

The second great wave of Jewish immigration into Ottoman Turkey began in the early years of the 19th century hen the Greek Revolution originated modern 'ethnic cleansing' by carrying out massacres and persecutions of its Muslim and Jewish population in order to create a homogeneous basis for the new independent kingdom of Greece. The resulting influx of refugees into the shrinking boundaries of the Ottoman Empire was followed by similar events in the remaining Ottoman provinces in Europe as Serbia, Bulgaria, and Rumania achieved their independence by following the Greek example of persecuting and/or murdering their non-Christian minorities, who in turn fled to the empire which had given their ancestors support and protection over the centuries. This influx reached its peak as a result of the Russian pogroms which began in 1881, followed by the Balkan Wars (1912-1913), when Greek assaults on the Jewish community of Salonica and other parts of eastern Macedonia led thousands of Jews, who previously had consttuted a majority of its population, to flee eastward into Ottoman territory, settling mostly in Istanbul and Izmir, where they contributed significantly to the revival of their industry and trade that took place during and after World War I.

Most of the Jews coming from the former Ottoman provinces of Southeastern Europe fitted in very well with xisting Jewish community practices and customs since most shared the Sephardic religious and cultural practices which had dominated Ottoman Jewry since the late years of the 15th century. They were followed, however, by hundreds of Jewish refugees from the political upheavals and repressions which followed the French Revolution and Napoleonic wars in Europe, and again the revolutions of 1848, when Jewish liberals, many of whom were wealthy merchants, industrialists and bankers who had emerged folloing the emancipations of the French Revolutionary era, were subjected to large scale harassment by the reactionary monarchies of Europe. Thse brought to the Ottoman Empire the talents, experience and capital which they had built up in Europe during the previous decades, and applied it to creating banks, factories, and model farms through Anatolia, contributing significantly to the development of Ottoman indusry and agriculture during the later years of the Tanzimat. Unlike the immigrants from Southeastern Europe and Russia, however, they did not fit in with the established Ottoman Jewish society, part of Middle Eastern civilization, but instead strengthened the Ashkenazi Ottoman Jewish community to the point where it was able to break away from the cultural dominance of the Sephardim and develop its own synagogues, schools and social institutions, thereby stimulating divisions within Ottoman Jewry which previously had not been significant.

Whereas the Ashkenazi immigrants from Europe who came to the Ottoman Empire were well-established intellectuals, industrialists, merchants and professionals, bringing with them a well developed cultural life as well as capital and knowledge which they were apply freely in the Ottoman dominions, very much as the Sephardic immigrants had done in earlier centuries, the Ashkenazi Jews who entered Ottoman territory in flight from the pogroms in Russia and subsequently from the terrors of the Bolshevik Revolution and the Russian Civil War that followed came out of the ghettos of the Russian Pale and brought with them few skills and a ghetto mentality. As a result, they fitted in neither with their Ashkenazi brothers from Central Europe or with the mass of Sephardic Jews who dominated the Ottoman Jewish establishment, and constituted more of a burden than an asset, both to the Empire and to the Jewish community which had to take care of them. These reacted to their impoverished situation as well as to their sgregation from other Ottoman jews by moving away from the centers of Ottoman political and economic life and following the early Zionist idealists to Palestine, where they settled during the last quarter of the 19th century in what has become known as the first Zionist Aliyah. Most of the new immigrants from Russia supported Zionism, since, unlike the Ottoman Jews, they had suffered severe persecution and at the same time had little experience with the advantages of Ottoman life, and looked down on their Middle Eastern brothers as much as they did on their Muslim neighbors. Most Ottoman Jews, both Separdim and Ashkenazim, on the other hand, therefore reacted negatively to the Zionist efforts to establish Palestine as a center of Jewish life, and opposed Theodore Herzl's efforts to convince Sultan Abdülhamid II to turn Palestine over to the Jews, rightfully fearing that the establishment of Jewish domination in Palestine would inevitably destroy the good relations they had maintained with their Muslim neighbors over the centuries. Ottoman Grand Rabbi (1909-1920) Haim Nahoum Efendi, reflected his community's opposition to Zionism, though because of the tremendous burden imposed on his community in Istanbul by the continued influx of thousands of refugees from South-eastern Europe and Russia, he was compelled to cooperate with the Zionists by helping send these refugees on to Palestine before and during World War I, thus helping to fulfil the Zionist ambition despite his fears for the future of Ottoman Jewry.

A new era of Turkish assistance to Jewish refugees began in the early 1930's, when Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and his Minister of Education, Hasan Ali Yücel, took advantage of Hitler's dismissal of Jewish educators and scientists to bring hundreds of them to Turkey, where they contributed significantly to the development of Turkish universities and scientific establishments as well as to the fine arts and music before and during World War II. Turkey remained neutral during most of the war. Though it was in a military alliance with Great Britain and France concluded in 1938, and openly sympathised with them in opposition to Nazi Germany, neither was able to assure it of assistance in case a declaration of war led to a German invasion from Greece and Bulgaria. In addition, most Turks vividly remembered the suffering which all subjects of the Ottoman Empire experienced as a result of the disasters of the Balkan Wars, World War I, and the Turkish War of National Liberation, and did not want to go through that agin unless their country's interests were directly threatened. Turkey therefore remained in a perilous state of neutrality through most of the war, though suffering considerable economic and financial difficulties as a result of its need to maintain a very large army against the possibility of a German attack at a time when most of its imports and exports were cut off Turkey most certainly did not remain out of World War II to help the Jews, but Turkish neutrality put it into a unique position where it could and did provide major assistance to Jews who were being persecuted, imprisoned and exterminated throughout Europe during the Holocaust and World War II. Its diplomats and consuls in Germany and German occupied countries used their diplomatic status to intervene on behalf of resident Turkish Jews who otherwise would have been subjected to the same persecution as that suffered by Jews who were citizens of the European countries occupied by the Nazis. In France, where we have most information, this work ws carried out by the Turkish Embassy to France, which was located at Vichy starting in 1941, as well as by the Turkish consulates-general at Paris and Marseilles, the latter moved to Grenoble after Germany occupied much of southern France following Italy's withdrawal from the war late in 1943. The Turkish diplomats who were most involved in this work, and who went to great lengths to protect Turkish Jews, often at the risk of their own lives, were at the Paris consulate, Consul-Genrals Cevdet Dülger from 1939 until 1942 and Fikret Sefik Özdoganci from 1942 until 1945, and Vice Consul Namik Kemal Yolga, who remained in Paris throughout the war. At Marseilles there were Consul Generals Bedi'i Arbel from 1940 until 1943 and Mehmed Fuad Carim, from June 1943 until 1943 and Vice Consul Necdet Kent, who like Ambassador Yolga remained in France until the end of the war.

The Turkish consuls regularly applied to the German and French authorities to exempt Turkish Jews from the anti-Jewish laws introduced by the German occupying authorities, and im imitation, and sometimes even more severe, by the Vichy government of unoccupied France. The Turkish claims for exemption were always based on the same principle, stated over and over again, that Turkey made no distinction among its citizens of different religions, and that under treaties maintained between Turkey and Germany, the latter therefore had no right to distinguish between Muslim and Jewish Turks. These diplomats intervened in all sorts of ways to assist Turkish Jews during the Holocaust. First and foremost they kept their Turkish citizenship in force and up to date by getting them to register and informing the authorities that they were entitled to protection as Turkish citizens whenever it became necessary to help them evade or escape Nazi and Vichy persecution. This was not as easy as it appears on the surface. At the sart of World War II, there were about ten thousand Turkish Jews living in France, and about an equal number living elsewhere in Europe. Some had left Turkey as long before as 1921, in the company of the French army that evacuated the country as the rersult of the Franklin-Bouillon Treaty of Ankara, by which France abandoned its effort to occupy Southeastern Turkey in alliance with Britain against the Turkish War of National Liberation (1918-1923), and began to help the Turks drive the British, Greek and Armenian invaders out of the country. Turkish Jews left Turkey at that time not because they opposed Turkish resistance to the Allied occupation-most Turkish jews supported Turkish integrity, as they had supported Ottoman integrity against the Christian nationalist revolts that had taken place during the 19th century and World War I. They left, rather, because they were afraid that despite the French withdrawal, the Turks would be unable to win the war against both the British and Greek invaders and that as aresult, most of western Turkey would be occupied Greece, which had a long history of persecuting and massacring Jews. The Greeks had burned down the Jewish quarter of Jewish Salonica in 1917, and when the city was being rebuilt right after the war, it had refused to allow the Jews to return, instead turning what was left of Jewish houses and land over to Greek refugees from Anatolia. Other Turkish Jews had gone to France during the 1920's, during the early years of the Turkish Republic, when the future seemed very uncertain as Atatürk was just beginning to put his secular reforms into place, and when residence in France seemed to offer far more comfort and prosperity. By 1940, many of these Turkish Jews in France had married French Jews, had children and even grandchildren who were French citizens, and in many cases had taken up French citizenship themselves. Some had retained their Turkish citizenship by registering with the Turkish consulates in France at least once every five years, as was required by Turkish law, but others had neglected to do this, and had as a result lsot their Turkish citizenship accrding to the terms of a Turkish law passed in 1935 which provided that Turks resident abroad had to register regularly or lose their citizenship. The situation did not seem important for most Turkish Jews in France, because for most of them it seemed far better to be a French Jew than a Turkish Jew. When the Nazis occupied the country and began persecuting French Jews, however, these Turkish jews who had given up their Turkish citizenship suddenly found it was far better to be a Turkish jew than a French Jew, and they applied in large numbers to have their Turkish citizenship restored. This took time, however, since each application had to be referred back to Ankara, and since the applicants had very little documentary proof, in many cases no more than birth certificates issued in Ottoman times. In the meantime, these Turkish Jews were subjected to increasingly severe Nazi persecution unless they could produce Turkish papers. The Turkish diplomats responded to this situation in two ways. On one hand, they ured their superiors in Ankara to speed up the process of restoring citizenship as much as possible. On the other hand, they invented what they called Certificates of Irregular Turkish Citizenships (Gayri muntazam vatandaslik tezkeresi), and gave them to Turkish Jews who were in imminent danger of being shipped off to forced labor, or to a concentration camp, or who were being threatened with eviction from their houses, apartments or ships, stating to the Nazis and the French authorities that even such people had to be considered as Turkish citizens, entitled to all the protections and immunities provided to other Turkish citizens in France. The paper work was immense, but somehow the Turkish diplomats worked tremendously hard to handle all these cases and to protect those Jews who needed protection by giving them papers when they needed them most.

On 2 November 1940, the Turkish Consulate General in Paris sent the following note to the German Embassy in protest against a regulation applying to Turkish jews a law that forbade all Jews from owning and operating businesses:

To the Embassy of Germany: The Consulate General of Turkey at Paris, basing itself on the fact that Turkish Constitutional Law makes no distinction between its citizens regardless of the religion to which they belong, has the honor of asking the German Embassy to give instructions to the competent department that the decision that has begun to effect certain merchants of Turkish nationality, because of the regulation of 18 October 1940, be reconsidered.

The German replies generally accepted the Turkish argument, for example on 28 February 1941:

Despite the general regulations..., the German Embassy is ready to support individual requests for exemptions of Jews by the Turkish Consulate General when they have Turkish nationality.

The French government of unoccupied France based at Vichy in many ways was more devious and difficult regarding Jews after the Vichy law enacted on 16 June 1941 required all Jews in unoccupied France, including Turkish citizens, to register themselves and their property, with the threat of their being sent to concentration camps for refusal to do so. The Turkish Ambassador to Paris (Vichy) objected to this in a statement to the French Foreign Ministry:

The Embassy of Turkey has the honor of informing the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that its Government, having been informed of the text of law no. 2,333 of 2 June 1941, which under menace of penal sanctions, orders the inscription of Jews on a special register along with a declaration which they must make regarding their properties, feels that the measures which it dictates are also applicable to Turkish citizens of Jewish origin established in France. Turkey itself establishes no discrimination among its citizens according to race, religion or anything else, and therefore feels with unease such discrimination imposed by the French government on those of its citizens who are established in France, so that the Turkish government can only reserve entirely its rights in what concerns those of the latter who are of the Jewish race.

In its response, Vichy insisted that a Jew was first and foremost a Jew, regardless of his nationality, and that Turkish Jews therefore had to be treated equally with all other Jews, as in the note from the French Foreign Ministry to the Turkish Embassy (Vichy) on 8 August 1941:

The Ministry has the honor of informing the (Turkish) Embassy that in establishing themselves in France, the individuals in question have implicitly agreed to submit themselves to the legislation of the country in which they are guests. This principle has sufficient force that the measures regarding people of the Hebrew race apply to all jews regardless, both those who are of French allegiance as well as those who are nationals of foreign countries.

It is interesting to note that the United States Embassy at Vichy advised American citizens resident in France to accept this argument, and thus not to expect protection from the United States, on the grounds that France did not discriminate among Jews and was treating Jews of American nationality no worse than it was treating other Jews. Turkey, however, absolutely refused to accept this argument on the grounds that such treatment violated the treaties signed between Turkey and France, according to which the nationals of Turkey had the privilege of enjoying the same civil rights in France that French citizens enjoyed in Turkey, and that it therefore did not have the right of discriminating among Turkish citizens because of their religion. A Turkish reply to this message, dated 9 September 1941, thus rejected the French claim:

While it is natural enough for foreigners to accept the laws of a country in which they live, in accordance with the strenuously expressed view of the French Foreign Minister that a foreigner who has settled in a country can be assumed to have accepte dthe attachment of his state and future to that country's laws, your answer must be that we reserve our rights in regard to a law which discriminates among Turkish citizens of different religions.The Turkish consulates in Paris and Marseilles continued to strongly protest against discriminatory laws issued both by the Nazi occupying authorities and the Vichy government, such as those which required Jews who were unemployed to join forced labor gangs; prevented Jews from having telephones or radios in their hosues; required that Jewish businesses by Aryanized by being turned over to non Jewish administrators or sold to Aryans; and which caused the arrest of Jews on the most minor sort of protests, with their apartments and businesses turned over to French adminitrators or sealed, their contents appropriated, and their occupants sent to concentration camps in France or death camps in Eastern Europe. In such cases, the Turkish consuls wrote official letters of protest and made personal contacts with the German Ambassador in Paris, Otto Abetz, and with French and German police officials, concentration camp commanders, S.S. and Gestapo officers and the like. Though there was a good deal of stalling by the Nazis as well as by the French officials, ultimately in most cases they received the answer that if they could document that the Jews in question were in fact Turkish citizens, they would be released, under the condition that they be sent to Turkey as rapidly as possible. At times, the Turkish consuls actually went into the concentration camps to deliver these messages and secure the release of prisoners who had the fortune to have Turkish nationality.

Most of the Jews in France were sent to the concentration camp at Drancy, in the outskirts of Paris, from which they were sent on to Auschwitz for extermination. The situation of Turkish Jews at Drancy, as at other concentration camps in France, was not easy, since they were scorned and persecuted, not only by the Germans and the French police that guarded the outskirts of the camps, but also by the French Jews who were prisoners, who felt superior to the foreign Jews, who felt that while they were true Frenchmen, the latter were not, and who used their domination of the Jewish camp bureaucracy to favor their own in distributing food, assigning work, and the like, and also to arrange that when the Germans called for a thousand Jews a week to be shipped East to the concentration camps, most of those selected were foreign Jews. I have put together accounts of the situation at Drancy written by different Jews who were inmates there during the war:

There were there Frenchmen, Poles, Turks and the like. I was chief of the room, and I never succeeded in being able to place myself between the yiddishists and the hispano-turcs, who constantly intrigued for a few more bits of bread. They lived by nationality, by groups, by compatriots. Each looked after only his own interests and not those of his neighbor....

The internees deplored that there was little solidarity among them. The most striking manifestation of this seemed to be the frequent discussions which opposed some to others, in particular French and foreign Jews. The French Jews reproached the foreigners for being the cause of their misfortunes, and the latter complained about France. Perhaps it is necessary to lay the responsibility at the door of the French Jews, many of whom came to the camp saying that they were superior Jews and that they would be released before the others. But one must recognize that their bitterness was justified, particularly when they were war veterants who had performed their duty for their country and could not understand how they could be treated differently than their fellow citizens....

to be followed...

*Professor Emeritus of Turkish History, University of California Los Angeles  and Professor of Turkish History, Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey

It is apparent, from the dire straits in which we find ourselves today, that the 80-year long silence of the Turks has cost them a great deal.

During that time, a great number of Haiks settled in Western countries, became assimilated by the local culture and integrated themselves seamlessly into the political system. Compare this with the fact that, until very recently, the Turkish Government was discouraging the Diaspora Turks from becoming naturalized and assuming citizenship of their host country.

A good example is the situation in France, where there live an almost equal number of Armenians and Turks (about 400,000). Whereas there are politicians [Click Here], educators [Click Here], artists [Click Here], performers [Click Here] among French Armenians, there is almost no Turk integrated in the French society. To the contrary, most Turks there, like those in Germany, Holland and Denmark, are non-professionals who cannot or will not penetrate into politics. Though there are close to 3 million Turks in Germany, there are no more than 10 elected politicians from among them [Click here]. The situation will hopefully change for the better among second- and third-generation Turks.

Similarly, the Armenians in the US are extremely well assimilated in the famous American melting pot. Turks in the US are different from their European counterparts, though, as most Turks who settle in the US are professionals. A great percentage of them prosper above the average middle class status. The problem is that they tend to get lost in the day-to-day struggles imposed upon them by the American capitalistic work environment. As a result, they do not organize into political entities and neglect the assimilation process into the electoral system.

Instead of countering these lies with the truth; systematically educating Turkish citizens in the Motherland and in the Diaspora; sponsoring organized academic research to demonstrate historical facts efficiently; sponsoring movies and documentaries; putting together scientific panels, debates, lectures and programs; producing high-quality fact-oriented publications on a widespread international platform; crushing the elements of lie and hatred through facts and civilized, modern, and sympathetic presentations using scientific methodology; very little has been done by Turks so-far. But, the new generation, especially the Diaspora, realizes the consequences of apathy, lethargy and inertia. It is determined to do the research, seek the truth, learn how to present it, and expose the lie.

TURKISH RESPONSE

Undoubtedly, the Turkish response has been very weak and falling behind of the organized Haik propaganda and lie machinery, constantly loosing ground on the internetional arena. Some examples are below.

Political

The Turkish Government appointed officials and hired lobbyists who prevented, up to a point, nations to pass pro-Haik legislature, mainly by threatening these nations with economic, political, and military consequences. Even today, most pro-Turkish Western commentaries re: HR 106 warn about the consequences of loosing a powerful ally in the region should the Congress vote in favor of it. There is no mention of historical facts and Haik lies. Obviously, the Governmental measures have been effective in delaying the inevitable. But, they remain palliative: They do not attack the roots of the problem. They do not expose the historical facts.

Academic

Essays, papers, and books were being published by a fistful of Turkish (Kamuran Gurun, Yusuf Halacoglu, Cemal Kutay, Sinasi Orel, etc.) and international (Justin McCarthy, Bernard Lewis, Guenther Lewy, etc) scholars in order to expose the historical facts. Unfortunately, the Turks in the Motherland or in the Diaspora have largely been ignorant of the historical truth, of the extent and vigor of the Haik propaganda, and of its alarming efficiency.

Educational

The Turkish Government chose a policy of forgive and forget, lest the Haik still living in Turkey be exposed to the risk of retaliation by the ultra-nationalistic elements. Generations of schoolchildren were educated without the slightest knowledge of the Haik rebellions, Haik massacres and Haik treason at the time of War. Same state strategy was used in relation to the Turco-Greek relationships. By contrast, the Greek and Haik elementary, middle and high school curricula are fraught with anti-Turkish propaganda. The Haik and the Greek, in Diaspora, learn as young as 5 years of age, how the barbarous Turks massacred their grandparents (!).

These contrasting strategies of the Turkish, Haik and Greek governments and of the Turkish , Greek and Haik Diaspora have paradoxical consequences: It is obvious that that the Haik Diaspora's efforts to push for Genocide recognition has turned into a lucrative, multi-billion dollar-a-year industry, especially in the US. The Gregorian Church, Haik NGOs, and private institutions benefit greatly from donations and collections. But, the effect of this on the homeland Haik is completely opposite. Armenia, as a state, is getting poorer and poorer, and the government is getting less and less democratic. Since they live an existence away from the truth, they are not free.Turks, on the other hand, have spent decades in a lethargic state, choosing to ignore Haik activities around them. In an imperially nonchalant attitude of "laissez-faire", they said "Let them spread these lies. These are such gross, fat lies that no-one in their right mind will believe them". But they forgot their own saying: "You say a lie 40 times, it becomes the truth". It was much like Oesop's tale of the Turtle and the Rabbit. By the time the confident rabbit woke from his imperial slumber, the steady, determined, consistent, insidious turtle had already crossed the line. The myth had already become paradigm.Today, the world, especially the Western world, so believes in the Genocide myth that any attempt to try to bring out and explain the historical facts is immediately branded with the epithet of Genocide Denier.The turning point in this big Turkish slumber and Haik encroachment to the public mind was the May 2007 French Lower House vote on a bill to make it a crime to deny the Haik Genocide.

CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS

Republic of Hayastan Today

On September 23, 1991, Hayastan declared its independence.On December 26, 1991, Soviet Union was dissolved and Hayastan gained its legal independence.The ConstitutionThe Haik Flag and the Haik Coat of ArmsDashnaks

Haik Atrocities in Azerbaijan

On April 13, 1992, in Karabagh, Azerbaijan, the Haik raided and bombarded Azeri villages.On April 23, 1992, in Karabagh, Azerbaijan, the Haik bombarded Azeri villages in the Susa region. Three Azeris were killed, 6 houses were destroyed or demolished.

The Political Terror Campaign

Haik Diaspora in the US

ANCA

Haik "Research" Institutions and "Researchers"

Taner Akcam

Fatma Muge Gocek

Orhan Pamuk

US Congress

The US Haik Diaspora's greatest aim is to force the American Parliament to pass a resolution calling the events of a genocide. In 2007, with the appointment of Nancy Pelocy (D, Fresno, CA) as Speaker of the House, the Haik lobby found particularly strong support to have the resolution passed. Representative Schiff proposed the House Resolution 106 (HR 106) on January 31, 2007 to the House. Turkish academicians sent letters enumerating the responses to each point on the resolution.

Haik Diaspora in Europe

Haik Diaspora Elsewhere

Next: Conclusions

The formation of independent states in the Balkans in the course of the 19th c. had been a particularly traumatic and bloody affair. Although atrocities were committed on both sides, only the Christian deaths have caused a reaction in Europe. Muslim deaths were largely ignored. In his excellent book "Death and Exile", Professor Justin McCarty investigates the toll of 100 years of wars in terms of Muslim deaths,

Taking their example from the liberation of the Balkan nations, the Haik dreamed of a liberation of their own. In return for the benevolence of their Ottoman masters and of the Turkish people towards them for centuries, they responded with ingratitude and rebellion. They were never deterred by the fact that, unlike their Balkan counterparts, who constituted a majority of the population in the liberated territories, the Haik had never been a majority in Eastern Anatolia, in the lands under Ottoman control. Instead, they:

Haik Revolutionary Societies

A report, which appeared in NYT on September 24, 1896, suggested: "Armenian revolutionary societies now existing [in Constantinople] are five in number. The members of these societies ... are bound by the most solemn oaths to bring about the ruin of the Ottoman Empire and to force the European powers to intervene in Turkey". As we know today, the Haik are still using this most despicable and characterless of tactics to get their wishes fulfilled: Begging foreign powers (today, foreign parliaments) to intervene on their behalf and convincing politicians by producing shameless lies. The terrorists then, like in the 1980s with ASALA, do not refrain from even the lowest of acts in moving towards their goal. Another report in New York Times in October 4, 1895, reveals how they can kill even their own in cold blood: "Commenting on the murder of Garabed Agha [Chief man of the Protestant community, and Chairman of the Council of Thirty, which was responsible for the peace of the city], the Rev. George E. White, an American missionary of the Congregationalist School ar Morsovan, wrote as follows: There are two parties of Armenians. Some say: "We must be loyal to the Turkish Government. We cannot effect a revolution. We are too few." Others say: " We will assasinate and stir up until we overturn this Turkish Government". And the revolutionalists are ready to kill any of their brother Armenians or missionaries who do not help on the rebellion. They killed Garabed Agha because he would not help on the rebellion".

Dashnakzootioun: Tiblisi

Armenakan:

The first revolutionary Haik party, which would adopt terrorism as political means, was founded in 1885 in Van and modeled as a European organization. One of its leaders was Migirdic Portakalian, in charge of printing the official publication of Armenakan, Armenia. He was the son of a rich Constantinople banker, and lived in Marseilles, France. The other two leaders were locals: Hirinian, who was Patriarch of Van; and Migirdic Terlemezian, who was in charge of developing the Youth Arm of the movement.

Hinchak

The first political entity inspired by revolutionary Marxist principles, the Hinchak Party was founded in 1887 by Haik youth studying in Geneva, Switzerland, who were Russian citizens. Hinchak means "Bell" in Haik. Russians had a revolutionary party called Bell in Russian, from which the Hinchakists had taken their inspiration.

Rangavar

October 1, 1921. Active in Van.

Haik Acts of Rebellion and Terrorism

The organized nature and provocative character of the earlier phases of Haik terrorism were reported quite fairly in the American press, particularly in the Ney York Times. One striking example of reporting of the deliberate provocations instigated by the Haik rebels is a statement in New York Times, which appeared on October 20, 1895, in relation to the events at Kumkapi (see below). The statement says: "The theory of the Armenian Hunchagist revolutionary party seems to be that its special work is to enlighten the world about the true character of Turkey. Leaving aside chimerical schemes for revolt against overwhelming numbers, they limit their operations to exciting the Turk until he shows himself as he is. They hold that Turkey is a wolf in sheep's clothing. If they twist the tail of the beast, he will forget and stain the snowy fleece with blood every time, although the fact that he needs a white fleece for the preservation of his disguise is perfectly well known to the reputed wolf". Only 2 months prior to that, the same newspaper had published a striking analysis, by the Associated Press correspondent upon his visit to Turkey after the Sasson incident, of the Haik character in general and of the British involvment in the Ottoman-Haik affairs, in particular: "The reason why English public opinion is generally in favor of the Armenians is both political and religious. No real esteem for the Armenians themselves exists in England. Besides, everybody admits in Europe that Armenians, as a race, are much inferior to the Turks. Armenians, even in olden times, showed no greatness. Their influence in the world has been absolutely nil. In science, in art, in literature, in warlike achievements, they have left no trace. But, they are Christians, and this is one reason why English public opinion is in their favor. The political reason lies in the fact that England wishe to harass Turkey for the just opposition of the latter to English scandalous encroachments on Egyptian territory, which, after all, belong legitimately to the Sultan. It is just as if England has taken possession of one of your States and, at the same time, were fomenting discontent for, and disapprobation of, your treatment of the Indian race which Colombus found supreme on this continent."Unfortunately, the impartial nature of the New York Times would change by 1915, when NYT would change hands. In 1915 alone, there were 194 articles published, all feverishly in favor of Haik lies and propaganda.

The First Rebellion:

Erzurum (1890)

Sassoon

Zeitoon

Siege and Occupation of the Haik Patriarchate in Kumkapi (1895)

This is the first Haik event in the capital of the Empire. Before the Haik, the Greeks, the Bulgars or the Macedons had never dared undertake military action in Constantinople. The Haik were the first minority of the Empire insolent enough to do that. On the morning of September 30, 1895, a number of protestors set off from the Haik Patriarchate in Kumkapi, towards the residence of the Grand Vizier, after having publicly declared that they intended to cause trouble. On the way, they killed the cavalry officer who was in charge of a platoon attempting to control the pervasive Hintchakist elements inside the procession. Large scale unrest ensued in the city, and many Haik ended up dead on the streets at the hands of the mob, or at the security headquarters, at the hands of the police.

The Raid on Bab-i Ali

Bab-i Ali (The High Gate) was the seat of the Ottoman Government. Therefore, the raid was a direct challenge on Ottoman authority. Major street clashes ensued, in which 900 Muslims and 700 Haik would die.

Raid on the Ottoman Bank

On August 26, 1896, a handful of Haik terrorists raided the Ottoman Bank in Istanbul, in what the Haik scholar Libaridian would later call "The first act of urban terrorism". These terrorists would set an example for similar acts that would follow in the 20th c., such as the taking as hostages, and later killing, of the Israeli Olympic team members during the 1970 Munich Olympiads. Such terroristic acts would always be characterized by taking of hostages and presenting a list of demands, mostly for the release of their comrades, recognition of their cause, a large sum of money to be paid to them, and safe passage for themselves. Unfortunately, their wish was granted and the terrorists left the bank, escorted by the Russian Embassy's dragoman, taken to the private yacht, Gulnare, of bank governor Sir Edward Vincent, and sailed to France.

World War I

Haik Relocation

A very legitimate move, much like the US relocation of Japanese Americans during WWII, from the Pacific Coast to more centrally located internment camps. The difference between the Japanese and Haik relocations was that there were no proof that the former collaborated with US war time enemies, while there was plenty of proof that the latter were in full collaboration with both Russians on the northwestern and the French on the southwestern war zones. The possessions of the refugees at their home towns were meticulously noted in order to be re-issued to their proper owners upon their return at war's end. Furthermore, the State mechanism was operated at its fullest extent in order to take care of the refugees not only on route but also at destination (Click here for the original document, its transliteration, and translation)

Paris Peace Conference

One of the most important witnesses, albeit unintentional, to the fact that the Haik have been anything but unarmed and innocent before, during and after the relocations, has been none other the very leaders of the Haik intellectual, political and military organization and eventual uprising. Along with Aharonian, Boghos Nubar Pasha was the co-chair of the Haik delegation that attended the Paris Peace conference in 1918, at the conclusion of WWI. The Allies had began to make plans for the partition of and determining the spheres of influence in the Ottoman territories among themselves long before the end of the War. With the signing of the Mundros Armistice, with which the Ottoman Empire officially and internationally admitted a most humiliating defeat on all battle fronts, time had finally come to ratify these plans on the negotiation table as well. Paris Peace Conference was nothing else than a meeting among gentlemen, who would agree which part of the Empire would go to whom. Naturaly, Boghos Nubar was anxious to let the Allies know, in no uncertain terms and before the partition was over, that the Haik had been "de facto belligerents" since the beginning of the War and they they, too, had a right to a slice of the Ottoman pie, and a big slice , at that. Little did he know that, what he innocently admitted in his letters to the French Minister of Foreign Affairs and to the New York Times immediately before the Conference would be the most damning evidence against the Haik claims to innocence, one century later. Turks are forever grateful to the Pasha today, for his honesty and his fortitude.letterletter (original)letterNubar's numbers for surviving deportees are corraborated by another surprising (and unwilling) witness: Henry Morgenthau, the arch-Armenophile US Ambasador to Constantinople, who influenced NY Times to publish almost 200 anti-Ottoman articles in the year 1915 alone, among the other anti-Turkish propaganda that he tirelessly spread throughout his carrier and his life. In a letter, Morgenthau complained about the situation of the refugees but, in so doing, revealed the number of the survivors at almost 500,000, as a testimony for the future generations of Armenians to read and learn from... and then hide in a dark corner lest their lie be exposed.

Confessions from Haik Sources for Acts of Rebellion, Conspiracy and Treason

There are innumerable examples in the preserved literature, where various Haik committees pleaded for national independence while boasting about their own acts of rebellion and terrorism against their own legitimate government. Little did they know, in their greed for land, that once their rebellion was suppressed, history would judge them not as heros and martyrs (as they themselves claim to be), but as terrorists and enemies of the State, which has every right to deal them the harsh treatment that every traitor deserves.

• One such example is a 1913 confidential memorandum entitled "The Armenian Question and the Solutions It Entails: A Project for the Armenian Autonomy in Cilicia. Confidential Memorandum Presented to the Consuls of the Great Powers in Cilicia by the Armenian Committee for National Defense". The third clause of the report clearly enumerates the deeds of the Haik insurgents as follows: 3. If one upholds the principle upon which a nation aspiring to her liberty should pay for it the price of her own blood, then one submits that the Armenian Nation has acquired that right by the repeated insurrections of Sassoun and Zeitoun; by the bloody demonstrations of Constantinople in 1890, 1895, and 1896; by the various revolutionary movements that she attempted across all parts of Armenia and Cilicia; and by the devoted efforts deployed by her innumerable heros and martyrs".

• A most damning document by the mouth of a highest level official came from Hovhannes Kachaznouni, the leader of the Dashnakzootioun movement and, later, the first President of the Republic of Armenia in 1921. In the annual party congress held in Bucharest, Hungary in 1923, Kachaznouni addressed the General Assembly with a speech that he later had printed and bound as a book entitled "The Dashnaksootioun Has Nothing to Do Anymore". The first, 1923, edition of this book was in Armenian but, unfortunately, no copies of it can be found today as the Government of the Republic of Armenia" made it a crime to possess, distribute, and read this book and had all copies of it removed from circulation. We are sure some Haik libraries in Diaspora have it but they are quite unwilling to share it for obvious reasons. In a totally serendipitous event, a Turkish researcher, Mehmet Perincek, while doing his Ph.D. in International Politics, came across a 1928 translation of the book into Russian in the Lenin Public Library in Moscow. Current translations of this copy into English and Turkish are generally not accepted as correct. We are having it translated into English by third party translation bureaus.

Next: The Era of Haik Forgeries

Every parasitic organism looks out for an occasion which would lower the immune defenses of its host in order to begin to multiply, gain strength and take over some part of the host. That is why these are called opportunistic organisms. A good example are fungi. These microbial cells cause yeast infections when their host takes antibiotics to fight off bacterial infection. Antibiotics kill good (yeast-fighting) alongside bad (infection-causing) bacteria. Same is with parasitic groups: They are always on the look-out for the weak moment of their government in order to spark separatist movements by armed rebellions. In the 19th century, the Haik subjects of the weakening Ottoman Empire proved to be one such opportunistic group that rose in armed resistance against Ottoman central authority once the Empire started to show unmistakable signs of a crippling disease; a disease that lowered all internal and external defensive mechanisms. In order to better understand the causes of this Haik infection, therefore, it may be useful to step away from our main topic and investigate, in some detail, the factors that led to the weakening and the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire.

With the Renaissance movement in 15th c., the Reformation of the 16th c., and the Enlightenment of the 17th. c., the road was paved for Rationalism and Positivism in European thought, which in turn, ushered the Industrial Revolution in England in the 18th. c. The advances in science and technology found many applications in the military field in terms of better weaponry, arsenal, and battlefield tactics and maneuvers. Bernard Shaw , in his classic "What Went Wrong: The Clash between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East" suggests:

"With the advent of New Learning, the Europeans advanced by leaps and bounds, leaving the scientific and technological and eventually the cultural heritage of the Islamic world far behind them. The Muslims for a long time remained unaware of this. The Renaissance, the Reformation , the technological revolution passed virtually unnoticed in the lands of Islam, where they were still inclined to dismiss the denizens of the lands beyond the Western frontier as benighted barbarians, much inferior even to the more sophisticated Asian infidels to the east. Thes had useful skills and devices to impart; the Europeans had neither. It was a judgment that had for long been reasonably accurate. It was becoming dangerously out of date.

Usually the lessons of history are most perspicuously and unequivocally taught on the battlefield, but there may be some delay before the lesson is understood and applied. In Christendom the final defeat of the Moores in Spain in 1492 and the liberation of Russia from the Tartars were understandably seen as decisive victories. But in the heartlands of Islam, these happenings on the remote frontiers of civilization seemed less important and were in any case overshadowed in Muslim eyes by such central and vastly more important victories as the ignominious eviction of the Crusaders from the Levant in the 13th century, the capture of Constantinople in 1453, and the triumphant march of the Turkish forces through the Balkans toward the surviving Christian imperial city of Vienna, in what seemed to be an irresistible advance of Islam and defeat of Christendom.

The great battle of Mohacs in Hungary, in August 1526, gave the Turks a decisive victory, and opened the way to the first siege of Vienna in 1529. The failure to capture Vienna on that occasion was seen on both sides as a delay, not a defeat, and opened a long struggle for mastery in the heart of Europe".

However, the Ottomans, beginning with the death of Suleiman the Magnificient in 1566, could not keep up with European revolutions in thought and in technology. They began to lose against their foes in Europe, where their territories began to shrink; and their economy was affected as a result of these losses. The weakened State found itself in a precipitous decline, which had its consequences in the deterioration of the central administrative power. Local Lords and Vassals abused this loss of central authority by exerting more and more harsh treatment of their subject populations, which largely consisted of Christians. Popular discontent constituted a fertile soil, on which the European rivals of the Ottoman Empire would easily sow the seeds of rebellion in order to divide the Empire from inside.

Capitulations

The capitulations that were granted to European powers by overly confident Sultans of the glorious past were the perfect excuse for rival Empires of later centuries to intervene in Ottoman internal affairs, in economic as well as social spheres.

The "Armenian Problem"

According to Haik sources (page 1 2 3 , the concept of "Armenian Problem" was first coined as a word in Article 16 of the Treaty of San Stefano.

1. • San Stefano: Article 16

   • Cyprus Convention: Article 2

   • Berlin Treatise: Article 61

   • Note Identique des Grandes Puissances: 1880

   • Note Collective et le Projet de Reformes: 24 May 1895

2. The United States and the Missionary Movement: The United States chose not to exert a direct political or military interference with Ottoman affairs. Instead, they sent missionaries to divide the population and to conquer the castle from within. As always, the Ottomans were utterly unaware, initially, of the work of these people and of the consequences thereof. Their characteristic "laissez-faire" attitude would cost them very dearly, though. And, by the time they understood what was going on, it was already too late. The scholarly work by Cagri Erhan on the Ottoman official attitudes towards American missionaries is one of the most enlightening sources on the issue.

   • Goodell: Goodell, Goodell

   • Bliss: Bliss

   • Cyrus Hamlin: The life and achievements of one of the most illustrious characters among these Protestant American missionaries, Cyrus Hamlin is narrated by Malcolm P. Stevens and Marcia R. Stevens in the Saudi Aramco World 1984 article, 'A College on the Bosporus' , and illustrated by Michael Grimsdale. The greatest contribution of Dr. Hamlin to the Turkish cause is a letter, 'A Dangerous Movement Among the Armenians', which he wrote to the Congregationalist in 1894, and in which he exposes, with no uncertain words, the heinous plans of the Huntchakist guerrillas of inciting inter-communal massacres in the Eastern Vilayets of the Ottoman Empire, with the intention of founding an independent republic there (For ease of legibility of the letter, please click here).

Next: Haik Rebellion