As the Russians continued their attack on Ottoman lands, Armenian rebels, in a coordinated effort, staged uprisings throughout eastern Anatolia. On April 13, one Armenian band took control of the Ottoman city of Van and massacred almost all its Muslim inhabitants until the Russians arrived on May 31, 1915. On August 4, the Ottomans were able to send enough troops to Van to drive the Russians and Armenians out of the city. Because the Armenians had taken such an active role in the capture and turning over of Van to the Russians, the entire Armenian population followed the Russians when they evacuated and retreated home. The Ottomans found a burned-out city when they entered Van.

The revolt in Van was the only Armenian success. During their other uprisings, they were not able to hold any of the Ottoman cities they attacked, but they surely killed many more Turks. These Armenian acts did significant harm the Ottoman war effort.

Even though the Ottomans were able to drive the Russians and Armenians back, Armenians who continued to live among the Turks in eastern Anatolia kept up their attempts to help the Russians by the use of guerrilla-style hit-and-run raids behind the Ottoman battle lines. This act was the final straw that caused the Ottoman government to order the removal of all Armenians from within their country. Wouldn’t any nation do the same when acting in self-defense?

It can be said that the beginning of World War I was also the beginning of the last phase of the inter-communal war between the Armenians and Turks – such warfare having first begun in the 1820s. All kinds of atrocities had been committed between Armenians and Turks in the Caucasus and eastern Anatolia for one hundred years. During World War I, there was little the Ottoman government could do to end the violence because of the Armenian aggressive behavior.

Historian Justin McCarthy observes that evidence from Muslim survivors of the Armenian attacks indicates a long-term hatred was at work. Brutal rapes and torture were evident everywhere and murder was common. Unlike atrocities against Muslims in Europe in the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878 and in the Balkan Wars, attacks by Armenians on the Muslims of the east during World War I seem to have been focused on murder rather than on causing flight.

The Armenian rebels were well organized and equipped with Russian arms and ready to launch their revolution within the Ottoman Empire by March 1915. When the signal was given, Armenians in Van began to shoot at police stations and Muslim homes. The Armenians had secretly brought their weapons into the city and the attack was a total surprise.

Armenians quickly advanced through the city of Van, burning the Muslim section and killing any Muslim captured. The Armenians used the same tactics to attack throughout eastern Anatolia.

These attacks were carried out in the same manner as those carried out by the Christians in the Balkans – kill first the individuals who could organize opposition. Everything Muslim was destroyed. All mosques were burned. The entire Muslim section of each city was burned to the ground. Only a handful of buildings were left standing.

Smaller Muslim villages were also attacked. The Muslims were forced to flee with whatever property they could carry. On the roads out of the villages other Armenians waited to rob, kill, and rape women. Survivors were left to continue their escape from the Christian Armenians without food or adequate clothing. At this time there were few young men in the villages because most had been drafted into the Ottoman army.

The Ottomans were quick to respond. Government officials realized Armenian guerrillas were helpful to the Russians. Local Armenian communities also supported these guerrillas. Because of the well-planned and coordinated attacks throughout eastern Anatolia, the Ottoman government solved their problem of how to deal with a disloyal people. On May 26, 1915, the first orders were issued to begin the removal of all Armenians living within the war zone.

It is clear when reading the orders of the Ottoman government what they intended to do – the peaceful moving and resettlement of Armenians. Armenians "claim" today that there were other secret orders issued to massacre the Armenians. History proves this is an absurd allegation and nothing more than a story told to help Armenians get more money and aid from the Christian people of the world.

In reality, the basic problem was that the Ottoman government was so weak it didn’t have the manpower to move the Armenians. The responsibility of moving and protection of Armenians was left up to local officials who also had the problem of having too few troops and supplies.

Local officials were expected to supervise a huge movement of people while they were in the middle of a guerrilla war with Armenian rebels and also in a shooting war with the Russians. All local officials had been a small number of, what can be called, "regular policemen" under their command.

Local officials had a choice to make. They could send off well-guarded large groups of Armenians and leave their cities and villages unprotected against Armenian guerrillas or retain protection for their loyal citizens who remained. The locals did the common sense thing. They refused to send away their small police force to protect the treasonous and deported Armenians, so that when the guerrilla bands of Armenians did attack later, they would not find defenseless Ottoman cities and villages.

The actual responsibility of protecting the Armenians was that of the Ottoman government. However, the Ottomans had the same problem as the local officials. They had too few soldiers to send to protect the disloyal citizens who had created the problem in the first place. There is no question but that Armenians were disrupting supply lines behind the Ottoman battle lines. Every Ottoman soldier was needed to help stop the advancing Russian army. This transfer of much needed Ottoman troops to protect disloyal Armenians just wasn’t going to happen. The Ottoman government knew full well, based on almost one hundred years of Russian wars, what would take place if they lost the war. The Muslims would be forced out of the country again and there would be no Russian troops to protect them either. It was a war for survival.

The lack of security for the deported, disloyal Armenians opened the door for bad things to happen, similar to what happened to Muslims forced out of their homes over the years by the Russians. There are reported cases of local Ottoman officials stealing from the Armenians. Many local Muslims saw the chance to even old scores and make huge profits in dealing with the property of the Armenians forced to leave. Fair is fair, because Christians had done exactly the same to Muslims when the Russians moved in and forced the Muslims out.

The greatest danger facing the Armenians came from nomadic Kurdish tribes who raided the convoys. The few local policemen sent with each exiting group were not strong enough to protect them. As a general rule, the Kurds didn’t resort to mass slaughter of the Armenians, though many were killed, women were abducted, and the people were robbed. Little food was provided and the Kurds took that. Mortality thereafter came about from starvation and disease.

Professor McCarthy documents 1,397 criminal cases that were filed after the war and when the British controlled the Ottoman government. These charges were pressed against Turks who were alleged to have committed crimes against the Armenians. Some of the individuals received the death penalty for their crimes and were executed. (10)

Contrast this Ottoman justice to the fact there are no reported cases where either the Russians or Armenians charged, tried, or convicted any of their own people for official war crimes against the Muslims. The evidence is clear there were many more widespread crimes committed against the Muslims as evidenced by Muslim losses of almost four times more people than Armenians during this same period of time. No Russian or Armenian was ever punished for the horrible actions against defenseless Muslims.

The Ottomans made a sound military decision in removing all Armenians from the battle zone because widespread Armenian attacks all but ended behind their battle lines once the Armenians were gone. Once the Ottomans cut off the local support, the Armenian guerillas could not operate. Countless thousands of Armenian citizens paid a terrible price for their leaders` decision to betray their Ottoman government and cooperate with the Russians by attacking the Ottomans in their rear guard areas.

It is true that the Ottoman government was trying to protect all the civilian population. However, because of the attacks on them by both the Russians and Armenians, they just didn’t have the manpower to do so.

The only thing that saved the Ottoman Empire from being overrun by the Russians and Armenians was the Russian Revolution of 1917. Once the revolution began in their homeland, most of the Russian troops deserted and returned home. Once the Russians pulled out, their authority was taken over by the Armenians and their guerrilla bands. The historical record is clear that with the Russians gone, nothing held the Armenians in check in their dealings with Muslims.

McCarthy writes: "The events of the first period of the short Armenian rule were a type seen all too often in that time – murder of unarmed Muslim villagers, kidnapping of villagers, who were never seen again, destruction of Muslim markets, neighborhoods, and villages, and ubiquitous plunder and rape» (11).

The sources McCarthy provides reveal specific widespread Christian Armenian atrocities of Muslims. Even though the Armenians were well equipped with Russian arms and equipment, they were not equal to the Ottoman troops that followed the Russians as they withdrew. The first time Ottoman soldiers attacked the Armenian forces, the Armenians immediately began a retreat. This would be the pattern in which the Armenian forces would repeat again and again in the years to come. The first time they faced real troops, they threw down their weapons and ran.

Once the Armenians began to retreat, they realized their cause was lost and neither they nor the Russians would occupy eastern Anatolia. The Armenian reaction was to make certain the Muslims would have as little as possible to occupy and use. The result was the Armenians killed, plundered, raped, and destroyed everything that was Muslim as they ran to get out of eastern Anatolia.

Erzincan is but one of the many examples of terror Armenians left in their wake as they escaped from the Ottoman Empire: "Erzincan is a scene of tragedy. Wells are full of the corpses of Muslims. Dismembered bodies, hands, legs, heads are still spread all over the gardens of homes` The soldiers found three hundred-twelve unburied bodies, 606 were found buried in wells and ditches; and, of course, many more than that number had been killed. The fate of 650 Muslims who had been taken from the city, ostensibly for road building, was unknown» (12).

Armenians suffered terribly during and after World War I because of the terrible decisions of their leaders. Starvation and disease were widespread and there was much loss of life. The direct cause of death was undoubtedly the flight of Armenians removed from the country and the flight before the Ottoman armies. These deaths cannot be called "massacre" or "genocide," as claimed by the Armenians.

To serve history correctly and to be fair, the deaths of Muslims must be recorded as well as those of Armenians. Because those people were Muslims and not Christians, little of the truth of their horror has been told. The historical reality is that before the Armenians ran after their Russian fellow Christian allies, they massacred tens of thousands of Muslims. They did this in revenge and with the hope they could cleanse the region of Muslims and thus are able to sneak back into eastern Anatolia at a later time to claim a majority population. The truth is more than four times more Muslims perished than the Armenians.

"Even the British, who were powerfully committed to the Armenian cause and the creation of an Armenian state, formally warned Armenians about the massacre of Turks in Armenia proper` and in Baku. They told the Armenians they would lose the world’s sympathy if such massacres went on» (13).

British Colonel A. Rawlinson observed the terrible conduct of Armenians toward Muslims. The colonel wrote:

“I had received further very definite information of horror that had been committed by the Armenian soldiery in Kars Plain, and as I had been able to judge of their want of discipline by their treatment of my own detached parties, I had wired to Tiflis from Zivin that in the interests of humanity, the Armenians should not be left in independent command of the Moslem population, as their troops being without discipline, and not being under effective control, atrocities were constantly being committed, for which we should, with justice, eventually be held to be morally responsible” (14).

Admiral Mark Bristol, commander of American forces in the Ottoman Empire, wrote in his personal diary, "I know from reports of my own officers who served with General Dro that defenseless villages were bombarded and then occupied, and any inhabitants that had not run away were brutally killed, the village pillaged, and all the livestock confiscated, and then the village burned. This was carried out as a regular systematic get-ting-rid of the Muslims» (15).

The actual true facts of history records that the Russian Czars started the process of ethnic cleansing of Ottoman lands. Thereafter, a bitter hatred grew between Muslim and Christians because the Russians took the Muslim homes and lands time after time for almost one hundred years and gave these lands to Christian Armenians.

What would anyone’s emotions have been, had they been a Muslim and under such conditions?

In this chapter and the chapters to follow there will be references to Dr. Richard G. Hovannissian and the four volume, two-and-one-half-year history he wrote titled The Republic of Armenia. The Armenian professor’s biased opinion shows throughout his work. He states in the preface to volume I, "My father, Kaspar Hovannissian, was a continuous source of inspiration. The sole survivor of a large family that perished during the massacres of 1915, he began life anew in the United States but infused into that life a strong spiritual bond with his historic homeland».

In the preface to volume III, Hovannissian writes, "When I – the historian of the Armenian Republic – was elected in 1990 to membership in the esteemed National Academy of Sciences of Armenia – the implications of that act were profound». This experience was so profound that when considered in connection with his family experience in what is known today as Armenia, he is not objective. It must also be noted that Hovannissian’s four-volume history has been paid for by the taxpayers of California rather than by the dictatorial government of Armenia.

Nationalism came to the Ottoman Empire from western Europe. One reason the church was so involved in promoting nationalism within the minority communities in the Ottoman Empire was because the Ottoman government allowed religious freedom. Every religious community was permitted a great deal of autonomy. The Muslims made no special attempts to integrate members of other religions into the Muslim nation. The concept of "forced" conversion to Islam was almost nonexistent, which is contrary to what some textbooks and lobby groups say. Just before the beginning of World War I, Professor Hovannissian makes reference to what he calls the Armenian Plateau in the Ottoman Empire and in Russia. He describes these lands as beginning in the west at the Euphrates River then to the Pontus and Taurus mountains and on to the highlands of Karabagh (Garabagh). Even though Armenians had no government there in more than eight hundred years, they were still Armenian lands. Even eight hundred years before, when there was a small kingdom of Armenia, it was a vassal state of the Byzantine empire and before that a vassal state of the Romans. There hadn’t been a true independent kingdom for perhaps three thousand years. In spite of this historical fact Hovannissian admits the Armenians were never a majority population in what he calls Turkish Armenia. (16)

As the storm clouds of World War I became blacker, Professor Hovannissian admits Armenians had organized political organizations with the avowed purpose of liberating Turkish Armenia. If the Armenians hadn’t been a majority population for more than eight hundred years – even in a small part of the Ottoman Empire – what was it they were liberating?

He goes on to add that the Armenians placed their full efforts of liberating eastern Anatolia where Armenians began to claim was the cradle of the state they planned to establish. Armenians organized a political organization they named the Armenian Revolutionary Federation. The avowed purpose of this political organization was to overthrow the Ottoman Empire and claim what Armenians called Turkish Armenia. The Armenians thought these lands would be the center of their state. The Armenian Revolutionary Federation, from its inception in 1890, advocated the use of terror to achieve its goals and objectives. These bands of terrorists still maintain this terrorism attitude today.

Hovannissian’s Armenian history could well be titled Campaigns of Terror – The Armenian Deception. The facts provided by the Armenian professor show that Armenia continues its campaigns of terror while deceiving the United States and the world. Clearly, the Armenians prepared themselves for war against the Ottomans with whom they had lived in peace for more than five hundred years. The great advantage the Armenians had was that they lived behind the Ottoman battle lines and were accepted as friends and neighbors. They used this position of trust to wreak havoc on Ottoman troops who were defending their country from a Russian invasion.

He deceives his readers by making the statement that the `Armenian Revolutionary Federation, though formed in Tiflis, should dedicate itself to the emancipation of Turkish Armenians». The following proves Hovannissian’s Armenian Revolutionary Federation was nothing more than a terrorist organization.

K. S. Papazian wrote of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation: "The purpose of the A. R. Federation (Dashnak) is to achieve political and economic freedom in Turkish Armenia, by means of rebellion». Terrorism has from the first, been adopted by the Dashnak Committee of the Caucasus, as a policy or a method for achieving its ends. Under the heading "means" in their program adopted in 1892, it reads as follows: The Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnak}, in order to achieve its purpose through rebellion, organizes revolutionary groups». Method number 8 is as follows: "To wage fight, and subject to terrorism the government officials, the traders». Method number 11 is: "To subject the government institutions to destruction and pillage».

Dr. Jean Loris Melikoff, a founder of the Armenian Dashnak political organization, wrote: "The truth is the party (Dashnak Committee) was ruled by an oligarchy, for whom the particular interests of the party came before the interests of the people and nation. They (the Dashnaks) made collections among the bourgeois and the great merchants. At the end, when these means were exhausted, they resorted to terrorism, after the teachings of the Russian revolutionaries that the end justifies the means».

There are eyewitness accounts of Armenian terrorists terrorizing their own people. Consider the affidavit signed by Albert J. Amateau, a Jewish Ottoman citizen. This gentleman signed a sworn statement on October 11, 1989, before a notary public in Sonoma County, California. Mr. Amateau stated that in 1906 a number of wealthy Armenians in Izmir were assassinated. Mr Hayik Balgosian and his friend, Mr. Artin Balokian, had been shot by two men in front of the Balogosian mansion in Karatash, an affluent section of Izmir. Days later, the large establishment in the center of the Izmir Bazaar, the Sivri-Ssarian, wholesale dry goods warehouse and store, was bombed. Mr. Agop Sivri-Ssarian and a number of his Armenian employees were killed. The perpetrators then sent secret messages, in Armenian printed lettering, threatening a number of Armenian merchants, doctors, lawyers and architects – unless they "contributed" the sums the leaders of the secret societies had assessed, the recipients would suffer the same fate as Balgosian and Sivri-Ssarian.

The Russian consul general in Bitlis and Van was General Mayewski. He reported the following to Moscow in 1912: In 1895 and 1896 Armenian revolutionary committees created such suspicion between the Armenians and the native population that it became impossible to implement any sort of reform in these districts. The Armenian priests paid no attention to religious education, but instead concentrated on spreading nationalist ideas, which were affixed to the walls of monasteries, and in place of performing their religious duties they concentrated on stirring Christian enmity against Muslims. The revolts that took place in many provinces of Turkey during 1895 and 1896 were caused neither by great poverty among the Armenian villages nor because of Muslim attacks against them. In fact these villagers were considerably richer ad more prosperous than their neighbors. Rather, the Armenian revolts came from three causes:

1.  Their increasing maturity in political subjects;

2. The spread of ideas of nationality, liberation, and independence within the Armenian community;

3. Support of these ideas by the western governments and their encouragement through the efforts of the Armenian priests.

It can easily be seen that the basis for the Armenian revolts was not poverty, nor was it oppression or the desire for reform. Rather, it was simply the result of a join effort on the part of the Armenian revolutionary committees and the Armenian Church, in conjunction with the Western powers and Russia, to provide the basis to break up the Ottoman Empire. In Europe, the state-sponsored missionaries and the Armenian revolutionary committees spread stories of the unprovoked massacre of Christians by Muslims. These tales were often printed in the press as truth when just the opposite had taken place.

The Armenians made up a very small minority of the population in the territories they claimed as their "historic Armenia». The Encyclopedia Britannica of 1910 provides information that the Armenians made up only 15 percent of the area’s population they claimed. It seems unlikely they could achieve independence in any part of the Ottoman Empire without the massive foreign assistance that would have been required to push the out Turkish majorities and replace them with Armenians.

Professor Hovannissian repeatedly calls all the lands Armenia covets as Armenian Turkey, Armenian Russia, Armenian plateau, and so forth. This is but one of the "disguised" statements Hovannissian makes in his books. These claims of "Armenian land" have been used since the 1890s to deceive America and the world. Hovannissian’s claims are not founded on truth, fact, or the historical progression of modern civilizations.

Sydney Whitman, a reporter for the New York Herald, wrote in 1895 of an interview with the British counsel in Erzurum. Whitman asked, "If no Armenian revolutionary had come to this country, if they had not stirred Armenian revolution, would these clashes have occurred?" The British official’s answer was, "Of course not. I doubt if a single Armenian would have been killed». Whitman is one of several Armenian writers who freely admit that the goal of their revolutionary societies was to stir revolution, and their method was terror.

Zitat: _kismet_


az, sen eshe butun kitabi burda goj. Etu kto budit chitat e?!?!!!

bütün kitab gelir gözle  sen oxu oxu cox maraglidir