The most intensive period, when the propaganda against Turkey and the Turks occurred in America, was the year 1923. Powell writes about its reasons as follows:

“The reasons for the deep-rooted hostility against the Turks can be cited like that: The oppression policy against the Christian minority and especially the Armenians; secondly, religious prejudices and political propaganda. It is hard to say where the former ends and the latter one starts. Thirdly, the worry and the disappointment because of the re-emergence of a country, which we considered as defeated and disintegrated; and finally, the insistent rejection of the Turks to defend themselves.”

Powell writes about the last reason in the page 32 of his book and in his article in 1922, he reports the conversation he had with Sultan Vahdettin, in Yildiz Palace and the statements of the Sultan as follows:

“Your newspapers and the magazines would not publish it, if we sent an article written by a Turk. If it was published, your people would not read this; if they read it they would not believe in it. Even if we sent an expert, who can express the Turkish opinion in your own language to America, can this person find unbiased masses of listeners?”

Perhaps the words of the Sultan are right. Therefore, again in page 10 of the same book, it is said that one of the esteemed religious people of New England, whose name is not stated, says as follows: “I do not want to hear the truth concerning Turks. I have already changed my opinion about them.” This is because Turks were silent all the time and its opponents propagated against them and the religious and political considerations made an impression. Besides this, the mentality like “somehow or other it would not be published; even if it was published people would not read; even if it was read people would not believe”, was an associate element which caused the development of an approach against Turkey and production of an easy and quick result of contrary propaganda. Generally, almost in every country there is tendency to believe that the article in a newspaper gives facts.

It is obvious how the religion factor and political considerations have an associate role in the development and adoption of a disadvantageous ambience against Turkey. When the wise propaganda is involved the situation becomes worse. The reality in the reflected news diminishes or is totally lost, let alone reflect unilateral news. In the book the statements given prove this thesis:

“Events of violence were greatly exaggerated. Some of the violence supposed to have happened recently did not even occur. One of the local press representatives (Istanbul) of the American relief organisation told his friends frankly that he could only send the news against the Turks; because it was what earned him money.”

“The fact that they did not want to publish the report is not incomprehensible. Additionally, M. Venizelos laid all his weight. He objected to the publication of the incidents when the names of the witnesses were concealed and which were established without the presence of the Greek representative. It was rightful to behave like this not within the framework of the western commission but the local Greek authorities. The people, who unveiled the information against Greece lived in the regions under the Greek occupation and they could not be exposed to Greek retaliation. The same legal concerns were valid for the Bryce Report, which was about the treatment of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire and the German brutality in Belgium. Despite the same reasons, the allied governments did not hesitate to publish the above mentioned reports.”

The Bryce Report, that Toynbee mentioned, is the Blue Book of the British, of which he was the editor.

However, the opposite occasions seldom occurred. The British had to evacuate Baku on 18 September 1918. When the newspapers published this news, they mentioned the disloyalty of the Armenians. The British propaganda services seriously became anxious about it and tried to remove the effect of the news. The below mentioned lines of a memorandum, which was prepared with this objective, are very important:

“To discredit the Armenians means to weaken the struggle for Turkish hostility. It was difficult to eliminate the conviction that the Turkish people who were trying to with disasters continuously, are noble people. This news will revive this conviction and will harm the prestige of the Zionists and the prestige of Arabs. (…) The Turkish treatment towards the Armenians is the greatest leverage of the Government of the Majesty to provide the acceptance of the radical solution for the Turkish issue at home and abroad.”

It is useful to have a look at what kind of organisation the British established in order to take measures for the propaganda:

“The first thing that I heard concerning the propaganda department was that on August 1914 in Walton Health Golf Club, on Sunday, following a lunch, Mr. T.P. O’Connor told Lloyd George that it was necessary to respond to the propaganda, which was launched by the German in America by distributing brochures in the streets, and giving them to the passengers getting of the ships. Upon this, Lloyd George said, see this issue, what can Charlie do, consider this. Masterman accepted it.”

Mr. Masterman was an old Member of Parliament, and a member of the House of Commons. After this date, Mr. Masterman established the propaganda bureau and became the head of it. The presence of the bureau was concealed. Mr. Masterman resigned his post in the National Health Insurance Commission and he transformed the working place of this Commission “Wellington House”, into the headquarters of the bureau and it was recorded as “Wellington House” in the documents.

The activity domain of the “Wellington House” is described as follows:

“To disseminate the incidents like the struggle of the Allies; the efforts of the British; the things done by the Navy, Army and the merchant Marine; the economic and military capacities of the Empire, the reasons and the goals of the war; the crimes and the brutality of Germany and its allies; the struggle of Belgium, the incidents which prove the non-humanistic side of the submarine war. The means, which are used are books, brochures, magazines, diagrams, maps, posters, postcards, pictures, photographs and exhibitions.”

It was stated that only in Britain, the department published 17 million copies.

At the end of the 3rd report of 118 pages concerning the activities of Masterman’s Bureau, there is the list of the published brochures and the books. At the end of the second half of 1916, the number of the published brochures and books is 182. We come across the names of writers like Max Aitken, William Archer, Balfour, James Bryce, E. T. Cook, Conan Doyle, Alexander Gray, Archibald Hurd, Rudyard Kipling, A. Lowenstein, C. F. G. Masterman, A. J. Toynbee, H. G. Wells. One of the three books of Toynbee is “ The Tyrannies on Armenians”.

All the references in the “Blue Book”, which was published by the Masterman’s Bureau and re-published by an Armenian publishing house in America, are the Armenian newspapers like “Horizon” published in Tiblisi, “Armenia” published in Marseilles, “Ararat” published in London, “Gotchnag” published in New York, and the Committee of Armenian Tyranny in America, which reflected the information that was collected from the missionaries. It is evident what kind of book it would be, which was based on these sources. In the meantime, it is useful to note that although the Armenians in Istanbul and Izmir were not replaced, in the map given in this book it looks as if they have been replaced.

After the explanation on how the Blue Book was written, it is necessary to quote from two writers who studied these issues and how the propaganda materials was collected. The first writer is Arthur Ponsoby and the name of his book is “The Lies In the War Time”. Ponsoby was a member of the Liberal Party in the House of Commons as from 1910 until 1918. Later on, he was joined to the Labour Party. He was a person, who was against war. He published his book in 1928. The interesting parts which tell about the methods of propaganda are as follows:

“The War-Office issued a circular and invited the Officers to report on the war incidents about the enemy and had added that the incidents did no have to be real, a normal probability was enough.” (Page 20)

“Lies about brutality are one the most satisfactory ones: Especially in this country (Britain) and America, no war can be without them. To discredit the enemy can be considered as patriotism.” (Page 22)

“Even in ordinary incidents, of no importance, the witnessing of people would not create absolute confidence. At a moment when prejudices, enthusiasm, ambition and patriotism are mixed with sentiments, the statements made by a person has no value. It is impossible to block the dissemination of brutal stories. They were reiterated with brochures, posters, letters and speeches for many days. Popular figures, who would avoid to sentence their mortal enemies because of lack of evidence, did not hesitate be the leaders who accuse a nation of all kinds of brutalities and unnatural murders.”(Page 129)

“A photograph, taken by a camera has a great effect on the people because it is reliable. There is nothing more authentic than an instantaneous photograph. Nobody would think of doubting the authenticity of a photograph. Because of this, if it is false, it takes time to reveal it. During the war, the photograph assemblage became an industry. All the states did this; but the experts were the French.” (Page 135)

This expression may seem vague. Therefore it is appropriate to give some examples:

“In Europe, soon after the news was realised about the storming of Ottoman Bank by Armenians and attacks on the Armenians, some of the artists from illustrated newspapers were sent to Istanbul to draw the pictures of brutal incidents. One of the well-known war correspondents, Mr. Melton Prior was among them. He was a man of energetic and determined nature. He had an independent character. He told me that he was in a very delicate position because of his special task. People in his country heard about brutal and violent incidents and were eager to see pictures about them. Since the deceased Armenians were buried, the women and children were not harmed and none of the Armenian churches were attacked, providing these pictures was a problem. Being an honest man who appreciated the Turks, he refused to contrive false pictures of scenes he had not witnessed. However, the others were not as honest as he was. Consequently, I saw, in an Italian illustrated newspaper, horrible pictures, which showed the massacred women and children.”

“One of the up-front names, that was mentioned on the occasion of the so-called brutal correctional measures, was Musir Sakir Pasha, who was sent to Anatolia to make reforms.  It was rumoured all over the world that while the Field Marshall was in Erzurum on October 1895 that is during Armenian Revolt, his chain watch in his hands, he was instructing the soldiers to kill the Armenians for one and a half hours more- two hours in some of the versions-… Taking into account the objective of our trip, we visited the British Consul, Mr. Graves; the Governor, Mehmet ªerif Rauf Pasha; The French Consul M. Roqueferrier and the Russian Consul, M. V. A. Maximov. We asked these people whether they believed the rumors about ªakir Pasha. M. Roqueferrier told us that these were ridiculous stories, that were made up for fun and he added some words of appreciation for Sakir Pasha.”

“Russian Consul, M. Maximov said: It is not my responsibility to contradict these stories. What I can tell you about ªakir Pasha is that it is true that he is very brave and kindhearted. I have known him for long years. He is my friend. The British Consul, Mr. Graves said I was not there. I did not talk to him concerning this subject. However the Governor said that this is not true. This is sufficient for me because I believe what Rauf Pasha says without any hesitation.”

“I asked Mr. Graves, “Do you suppose that any massacre would occur, if the Armenian rebels did not encourage the Armenian for the rebellion.” He replied,  “certainly not. Not a single would have been killed.”

Nevertheless, this information never published in the western press. As it is stated in these words:

“At the end of October (1922), the representative of the Near East Relief Organisation, late Miss Annie T. Allen and Miss Florence Billings sent a report to the headquarters of the organisation in Istanbul. The report, consisted of the condition of the Turkish villages, which the Greeks set on fire while they were retreating. The organisation never published the report, as Lloyd George did not publish the Bristol Report concerning the catastrophe in Izmir caused by the Greeks.”

Truly, Lloyd George did not publish the Bristol Report.

“During the massacres in 1905, many photographs were taken in Russia. These photographs belonged to a group of corpses, surrounded by a crowd. One of these photographs was published in “Le Mirroir” on 14 June 1915 under the headline of “the murders in Poland by the German gangs”. Similar pictures, were published in many other newspapers.” (Page 136)

The second writer is Allen Lane and the name of the book is “Evdeki Atesi Yanik Tutun” (Keep the Firs at Home on). The first page of the book gives, the speech given by the US. President Coolidge on the occasion of Journalists Association. The President says the following: “The propaganda tries to reflect some parts of the incidents; block the relations between one and another and come to conclusions, which are impossible to attain if the series of the incidents are examined thoroughly.”

Some of the passages from the book are as follows:

“The objective of the propaganda is to simplify. It creates a way of thinking, which will vindicate the fights, with the continuous reiterations for a long time. It does this through the methods which the organisations responsible for propaganda and the news agencies will accept. The propagandist will create simple and believable descriptions and fiction because these will fit the beliefs which the people are actually invited to believe. As Gobel said in the successive war, “propaganda is to submit evidences, which people cannot find and verify by themselves, to naive people the issues, they think over and have wished for. (Page 3)

“In the time of war, this is, above all, to create the expected outlook and behaviour of the enemy in accordance with the prejudices about their behaviour. This necessitates concealing of the news that will make the enemy look and the submission of the news in a way, that will always arouse hatred for the enemy.”(Page 3)

“The brutal stories appear in every war. The goal is to create an image which is inspired by war and which will arouse fear on it.”(Page 3)

“War is presented to the people by means of universal and simple ideals on which nobody can oppose and which are known by everybody. These ideals are the symbols of the national virtues such as freedom, justice, democracy, and Christianity.” (Page 4)

“Characteristic brutal stories have come from the correspondents, who are far from the operation area. Unchangeably, these are told by some of the refugees whose identities were concealed. More than after these stories give second-hand information” (Page 84).

The subject of propaganda can be summarised by the words of C.F. Dixon Johnson:

“The emergence of the stories concerning the massacre of the masses is disadvantageous for Turkey at the final vindication. We do not hesitate to reiterate that this is the evident objective of the direction of the British Government’s policy. The nation, with which we have close alliance ties and which is co-religionist of millions of our citizens, is accused of committing horrible crimes against humanity by relying on the evidences, which are exaggerated considerably and shamelessly. There is no need to apologise for trying to accuse it honourably.”

REFERENCE:
Gürün, Kamuran, Ermeni Dosyasi, TTK Basimevi, Ankara, 1983, pp. 40-44

In 1896, differant missionaries, who were related to different Churches, 7 from America, 4 from Britain, dispersed to the Ottoman lands. 176 American missionaries and 869 local assistants worked together with them. The principal cities, where there was a mission were as follows: Bursa, Izmir, Merzifon, Kayseri, Sivas, Trabzon, Erzurum, Harput, Bitlis,  Van, Mardin, Antep, Maras, Adana, Hacin, Ankara, Yozgat, Amasya, Tokat, Arapkir, Malatya, Palu, Diyarbekir, Urfa, Birecik, Elbistan, Tarsus.

Although the missionary activities did not support the Armenian revolts, they played an important role within the context of preparing the ground for the rebellions. The reports received from the provinces recorded that the missionary activities increased in the periods just before and immediately after the rebellions.

REFERENCE
Gürün, Kamuran, Ermeni Dosyasi, TTK Basimevi, Ankara,1983,pp.40-44

THE INDEPENDENCE ACTIVITIES OF THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

After the declaration of “Regulation of the Armenian Nation” in 1863 the Patriarchs started to work in the national and political environments. This regulation was considered as a step for autonomy. They hoped that if the European intervention expanded because of the Lebanon incidents, this intervention would be very beneficial for them. The revolts (1780-1862) that were started for an independent Armenia in the Ottoman Empire, did not became succesful (3).

The idea of creating an autonomous state in the Ottoman Empire belongs to Migirdiç Hirimyan (1869-1873). Migirdich Hirimyan, born in 1820 in Van, became Vartabed (4) to the Akdamar Church in 1854, at the age of 34; thus, he became the member of the church. He started to publish the newspapers: The “Eagle of Van”, aiming at Armenian independence, was printed in the printing house he established in the Varak Monastery in Van; and “Eagle of Mus” was printed in the St. Garabed Monastery in 1863 in Mus. Hirimyan, who attracted attention through his sermons, was elected as the Armenian Patriarch in Istanbul in 1869 (5). His election as the Patriarch resulted in an increase in the national Armenian interests. As soon as he started to work he began his new job on these two principles:

      a.   To examine the “Regulation of the Armenian Nation” again and have it modified according to the demands and the needs of the provinces,

      b.   To attract the attention of the Armenians in Istanbul, the Assembly and the Government to Armenia.(6)

The bankers, moneychangers and the officials did not approve and opposed these ideas of Hirimyan, whose aim was to pull Armenians into dangerous adventures. They believed that their future was united with Turkey. Consequently, Hirimyan could not obtain his objective as a Patriarch, and he had to resign in August 1873.

His predecessor Patriarch Nerses Varjabedyan (1874-1884) pursued the idea of Hirimyan. In 1876, Abdulhamid II ascended the throne and the First Constitutional Regime was declared. During the Istanbul Conference (12 December 1876- 20 January 1877), which was held to settle the Bulgarian issue, Nerses Varjabedyan submitted a report prepared by the ex-Patriarch Hirimyan to the British Ambassador Henry Elliot concerning the so-called pressures on the Ottoman Armenians. However, because it was not on the agenda of the conference, his initiative was successful (7).

Reports and the applications of complaints by the Patriarchate which started in the Hirimyan era increased after the problems of Christians in Thrace. If we examine the reports of violence given by the Patriarchate to the Sublime Porte and the European countries, it is easy to notice that most of them were nothing but common police incidents. On one hand, the Patriarchate was exaggerating the most common incidents and informing the government about them, on the other hand, the Patriarchate transformed these incidents into serious political issues; and started to inform the European countries about them.

Before 1877-1878 Ottoman-Russian War there were two alternatives for the Armenians:

      a.   To remain loyal to the Ottoman State and the Turkish people,

      b.   To follow the steps of the other Christian communities in the Empire and to provide the intervention of the European states.

Patriarch Nerses sent a letter to the British Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lord Salisbury on 13 April 1878. The letter is as follows:

“It is no longer possible for the Armenians and the Turks to live together. Only a Christian administration can provide the equality, justice and the freedom of conscience. A Christian administration should replace the Muslim administration. Armenia (Eastern Anatolia) and Kilikya (8), are the regions, where the Christian administration should be founded… The Turkish Armenians want this… That is, a Christian administration is demanded in Turkish Armenia, as in Lebanon.”(9)

The Patriarch visited the British Ambassador to Istanbul, Layard on 17 March 1878 and told him that: “A year ago we did not have any problems with the Ottoman administration. However the Russian victory has changed the situation now. We want an independent Armenia in the East. If you can not help us, we will apply to the Russians.” When the ambassador asked him what he meant by “Armenia”, the Patriarch said, “Van, Sivas, Diyarbakir and Cilicia”. The ambassador said “Yes; but you do have not the majority in these places.” The Patriarch replied “We know this. Yet Russia is gaining lands now. The balance of powers between Russia and the Ottoman Empire changed. We have to take our future into account.” (10) Thus, he explained the objective of the Armenians.

Upon the peace request of the Ottomans, 1877-1878 Ottoman- Russian War ended on 31 January 1878 through the armistice concluded in Edirne (11), the terms of the peace agreement were settled in Ayastefanos (Yesilköy). During the peace negotiations in Ayastefanos (Yesilköy), Nerses Varjabedyan, in person and the Armenian notables negotiated with the Grand Duke Nikola, the head of the Russian delegation, the brother of the Tsar and they maneged to add an article concerning the Armenians. On 3 March 1878, the Ottoman State and Russia signed the Ayastefanos Agreement, which included heavy provisions. By stating the word “Armenia” in the 16th article of the agreement, the Ottoman State was forced to accept the presence of a state. However this agreement was not put into force.

When Patriarch Varjabedyan heard that the Ayastefanos Agreement would be modified in Berlin, he started to initiate the activities among the states that would participate in the congress. Within the context of this objective, the Archbishop of Besiktas Horen Nar Bey went to Russia (St. Petersburg) and was received by Tsar Alexander II. Horen Nar Bey requested him to continue protecting the Ottoman Armenians and to defend their struggle in the Berlin Congress. A delegation under the chairmanship of the ex- Patriarch Hirimyan visited the capitals of Europe (Rome, Vienna, Paris, London) and started to propagate in order to gain the politicians consent for the Armenian Struggle (Hai Tahd). The delegation had a project comprising of 7 articles, which stated the Armenian demands for the purpose of establishing Armenia in Turkey (12).

In addition to those activities, patriarch Nerses Varjabedyan sent a letter to the president of the Manchester Armenian Committee, Karekin Papazyan (13), stating that they were grateful to Russia and thanks to Britain, they gained the hope and goals, which was to attain material and moral prosperity. He also visited the British Ambassador, Layard, in Istanbul on June 30. He reported that they had given the project to the congress and he requested that the British should support this project. (14)

Additionally, Patriarch Nerses sent the falsified statistical figures of the church concerning the Armenian population in the big states.

As a result, this artificial problem, the 16th article of the Ayastefanos Agreement, was accepted as the 61st article of the Ayastefanos Agreement without many modifications on July 13, 1878. In this way, the Armenian question was established as the “Issue of Reforms”, that would be implemented in the Ottoman State under the supervision of the big states.

Nuryaz Çeraz participated in the Berlin Congress with ex-patriarch Hirimyan as an interpreter-secretary and published a brochure in 1879, which says that for the Armenians there was no need to sink into despair because of the results obtained in the Berlin Congress. Nuryaz Çeraz addressed them as follows (15):

“The Berlin Congress laid down the foundations of the national structure (The Armenian State)…Europe gave us arms; we have to use them before they rust…We acquired a gold mine through the Berlin Congress. It is our duty to run it and mine the gold”

As it is seen in the brochure, the Armenians were proposing the armed action and it was also stated that the European countries were supporting them.

Patriarch Nerses Varjebedyan believed that the problem should be worked out by means of revolution and rebellion and he founded the “Reforms Commission” in the Patriarchate. Towards the mid 1879, the Commission sent a circular to the Episcopacies and invited the Armenians to the rebellion with one statement. This circular also included what the Armenian religious people in the provinces were supposed to do (16).

Meanwhile, the Archbishop Mateos Izmirliyan, the Deputy Armenian Patriarch in Istanbul, dealt with sending letters to the episcopacies. When these letters are examined, it is easy to see that the Patriarchate was unfaithful and the aim of the action pursued was to demolish the government to provide foreign intervention, eventually to obtain autonomy (17).

The Governor of Sivas province, Hakki Pasha attracted attention to the below mentioned issues in his article, published in 1881 and 1882, when the activities of the Patriarchate against the state were reported to the Ministry of Interior (18):

      1.   The Patriarchate started sending circulars which mention revolution and rebellion preparations, to the bishops.

      2.   The Patriarchate fired or killed some of the sensible old bishops, who did not obey the rules of the Patriarchate and who were of the opinion that it was in vain for the Armenians to revolt and rebel and that the Armenian people would experience harm. Young and revolutionist bishops and priests replaced them.

      3.   The Patriarchate was involved in the censure, which was the duty of the state, through sending secret circulars to the European states, in order to show that they had the majority in the “Six Provinces”.

      4.   The Patriarchate propagated against the Turks and in favour of the Armenians in the European press, by collecting taxes using different names such as Famine Relief for the Armenians, payment of debts of Kudüs-ü ªerif and so forth. It tried to pretend to demonstrate the ordinary crimes as if they were the Armenian genocide. In short, it started a campaign based on the distorted incidents, fiction and slander.

      5.   The Patriarchate has hundreds of thousands liras (gold), which it collected from the Armenians under the pretence of “relief”. The armed gangs, which disseminated from Russia to Eastern Anatolia, with the help of local guards and using some of this money started to terrorise.

      6.   The priests demolished the respect for the rules of the government and obedience through posioning the minds of the Armenian people even the little children in the Armenian schools.

      7.   The Patriarchate is providing financial assistance to the committees it had helped to establish. It is useful to mention that the committees are under the administration of the Patriarchate.

After the death of Nerses Varjabedyan in 1884, the Bishop of Erzurum, Haratyun Vehabedyan (1885-1888) was elected as Patriarch in 1885. Vehabedyan disapproved the policy pursued by Migirdiç Hirimyan and Nerses Varjabedyan and he believed that it was useless to hope for help from Europe for the reformation of the condition of Turkish Armenians.

During the age of Haratyun Vehabedyan, who was the Patriarch for three years, the Armenian rebellion committees were expanded and opened branches in Europe and in America. The Armenian Revolutionist Parties adopted the Armenian nationalism ideal along with the church, in other words, the ideal revolutionary movement demanding autonomy. “Armenagan”, the first Armenian political party was founded in 1885 in Van. It was organised according to the model of its pioneers in Europe and had its own publication organ (19). In 1887, the Armenians founded their first Marxist party in Geneva. Later on they acquired the name “Hinçak Revolutionist Party” in 1890(20).

The Archbishop of Izmir Monastery, Horen Asikyan (1888-1894) replaced Haratyun Vehabedyan. During this period, the ordinary crimes in the provinces were exaggerated by the bishops and were reshaped and reflected to Europe as the “Turkish oppression and torture”(!).Their intervention was requested.

However, the Armenian committee members attempted to assassinate of Patriarch Horen Asikyan believing that he was not active enough for their cause. The Patriarch was only wounded and he resigned (21).

After Horen Asikyan, the Ex-Patriarch to Egypt, Mateos Izmirliyan was elected as the Armenian Patriarch to Istanbul (1894-1896). This boosted the morels of the Hinchaks. He employed officials and members, from the committees. Izmirliyan did not only disseminate the idea of revolution and rebellion but he also severely criticised the services provided by the government and he sent reports to the British Embassy and to the newspapers in London (22).

The rebellions, which took place in the period of Mateos Izmirliyan, started to expand rapidly to almost all the provinces (23). Thanks to the dexterity of Abdulhamid II, these rebellions were suppressed in a very short time. Izmirliyan resigned and went to Jerusalem. When he came back to Istanbul he was elected as Patriarch for the second time (1908-1909)(24).

The proclamation of Constitutional Regime, the Collaboration of Tashnak – Hinchak

Following the proclamation of the Constitutional Regime on 23-24 July 1908, the Patriarchate became accomplice a full of the committees. Thus, the Armenian Church acquired its role in terror after the proclamation of the Constitutional Regime.

The report No 602 on 3 December 1910 sent by the Russian Consul to Bitlis to the Russian Embassy to Istanbul (25), was clearly showed the relationship between the church and the Tasnak members.

Following the “Incident of 31 March” in 1909, in Istanbul temporarily there was no government and this provided the opportunity, which the Armenians sought. With the encouragement of Armenian Archbishop to Adana, Museg, the Armenian rebellion took place on 14 April 1909, with the aim of obtaining the intervention of the European countries through attracting their attention to this and establishing the Armenian State in Adana, Maras, Mersin and Iskenderun with the assistance of the Hinchaks (26). During 13 days, approximately 20.000 Turks and Armenians died in Adana incidents. And the Bishop Museg escaped to Alexandria in the second day of the revolt.

In the same period, on 29 May 1909, the Armenian Patriarch in Istanbul, Mateos Izmirliyan, left to Istanbul to replace the Catholicos Post, Eçmiyazin, Migirdiç Hirimyan, who died on October 1907. Yegice Turhan replaced Mateos Izmirliyan (1909-1911) as the Patriarch (27). After this, Hovannes Arsaruni was elected for the Post of Patriarch (1912-1913)(28).

“The regulation on Armenian CATHOLICOS and Patriarchate”

The activities of the Armenian Patriarchate to divide the country, necessitated the modification of the rights, that were stated in the “Regulation of the Armenian Nation”, granted by the Patriarchate and the State in 1863. With the “Regulation of Armenian Cathogicos and Patriarchate”, which became effective on 10 August 1916, the two separate posts like Cathogicos, which is spiritual and superior, and Patriarchate, which is semi spiritual, semi political and administrative, were put together and the single post, Cathogicos – Patriarchate Post emerged. The two Cathogicoses (Sis and Akdamar) in the Ottoman State and the two Patriarchates (Istanbul and Jerusalem) were abolished. The only post, Katogigos-Patriarchate replaced them. Its location was not Istanbul, the political center of the state; but the religious centre of Christianity, Jerusalem. The changes were materialized in the assemblies of the Patriarchate. The General Assembly (Millî Meclis-i Umumî) comprised of 140 members was abrogated and the Religious Assembly (Meclis-i Ruhanî) comprised of 12 persons and the Joint Assembly replaced it. The Ottoman State aimed at disconnecting the relation between the Cathogicos of Echmiyazin and Russia. Therefore, the Ottoman State tried to free the Ottoman Armenians from moral protection of Russia.

The Ottoman Empire was defeated in the World War I and the Entente Powers occupied its lands according to the provisions in the Armistice of Mondros, which was signed between the Entente Powers and the Ottoman Empire on 30 October 1918. Now, the time has come for the liberation of the country and the establishment of a new state, The Republic of Turkey.

The Activities of Patriarch ZAven Efendi

The Armistice of Mondros was an important step for the Armenians to establish Armenia. Zaven Efendi, the Armenian Patriarch, came to Istanbul on 6 December 1918 in accordance with the Regulations in 1918 (30). He established an organisation to found the independent Armenia (31). He collected aids like guns, bullets and money, tried to find the necessary equipment and got  considerable assistance from the Greek Patriarchate (32).

Bogos Nubar Pasha made an application to the Entente Powers on 30 November 1918, using the title of “the representative of Turkish Armenians” and he requested from the Entente Powers and the League of Nations to take Armenia under their protection (33). In the mean time, on 12 February 1919, the Patriarch Zaven Efendi went to Istanbul, Paris and then to London for the realisation of the same issue. First, he met Bogos Nubar Pasha and he enlightened him concerning issues; next Lord Cecil, Lord Curzon and his deputy Lord Harding. He also negotiated with French Chambon and the Greek Prime Minister Venizelos (34). He visited the British King George V to express the gratitude of the Armenians (35). While he was coming back from London to Paris he met with the French President and the Prime Minister and he came back with feelings of contentment and hope (36).

After the foundation of the Turkish Republic and the Lausanne Conference, there was no Armenian Question. The Armenian Church in Turkey opposed the initiatives of the Armenian Diaspora that would put Turkey into difficulty let alone pose problems. The Armenian Patriarch continued to react against the so-called Armenian genocide.

Therefore Dikran Kevorkan, the Chief of the Armenian Church in Kandilli said the following in the TV program, called Ceviz Kabugu on 7 October 2000 concerning the newly started propaganda within 6 months:

“The genocide and relocation (Tehcir) (the act of moving someone from somewhere) mean different things. The intrigues of the imperialists, the Armenian leaders with apolitical visions (media, churches, and the religious people) caused all these incidents. The Patriarch is the spiritual leader. It is a mistake to ask him about his political views. What could have they done the imperialist powers if had not supported ASALA and PKK?”

The idea of Kevorkan about the “assimilation” was as follows:

“Turkey is the only country, where the Armenians can preserve their identity freely and strongly. The Armenians, in the Diaspora abroad, change their names before they start their struggles, because in those countries an assimilation policy. The Armenians in the Diaspora against Turkey, know very well that in some of the churches in America the sacrifice ceremonies are fulfilled in English. The Armenians are forgetting their own language. When you say this, you are criticised. Therefore, we, the Armenian citizens of the Republic of Turkey, are expressing our grief. Why? Because it is unfair to act towards the Kuvay-i Milliye (Power of Nation), commanded by Ataturk. All these are the intrigues of the outsiders, including PKK, ASALA, and this decree. Those are the ruse of the outsiders. We, the citizens in Turkey, are of the opinion that this is unfair. If the Armenians are wise they should not let themselves be used as a tool.”

REFERENCES
1. Ilber Ortayli, Tanzimattan Cumhuriyete Yerel Yönetim Gelenegi, Istanbul 1985, pp. 73
2. Esat Uras,a.g.e.,pp.412
3. See Erdal Ilter, Ermeni Mes’elesinin Perspektifi ve Zeytun Isyanlari (1780-1880), Ankara 1988, pp.97-115
4. The spiritual ranks of the Armenian Church are as follows: Katogigos, Patriarch, Bishop, Vartabed, Priest.
5. Esat Uras, a.g.e., pp. 417; Louse Nalbandian, a.g.e., pp.53; Kamuran Gürün, a.g.e., pp. 62,74-
6. The word, Armenian means the Eastern Anatolia. However the word Armenia is accepted as the geographical term, not as an ethnic term, in the geographical scientific milieus. As from the XIII. Century, the name Armenia, which means “High/ Upwards/ Mountainous Region”, did not  occur by chance and until the second half of XIX. Century the region (Eastern Anatolia) was called “Turcoman Country”. For more information see H. Kemal Türközü, Türmen Ülkesi (Dogu Anadolu) Adi Emperyalizmin Etkileri, Ankara 1985, pp. 1-12; Kamuran Gürün, a.g.e., pp. 1-9; Mehlika Aktok Kasgarli, a.g.e., pp.329; Tuncer Baykara, Anadolu’nun Tarihî Cografyasina Giris, Anadolu’nun Idarî Taksimati, 1, Ankara 1988, pp.24-25,
7. Esat Uras, a.g.e., pp.417; Salahi Ramsdan Sonyal, The Ottoman Armenians,pp.41
8.   Kilikya is a region between Taurus Mountains, Amanos Mountains and  the Mediterranean. In the administrative context, Adana province was called Kilikya in the Ottoman Empire. The borders of Kilikya has changed sometimes.
9. F.O. 424/70, No. 134/I zikr., Bilal N. ªimsir, British Documents On Ottoman Armenians 1856-1880), Vol. I, Ankara 19R2, pp.173. Document No. 69
10. Kamuran Gürün, a.g.e., pp. 99.
11. Nihat Erim, Devletlerarasi Hukuk ve Siyasi Tarih Metinleri: Osmanli Imparatorlugu Andlasmalari, Vol.1, Ankara 1953, pp.381-385.
12. For the whole of the project, see Esat Uras, a.g.e., pp.459-485; Enver Ziya Karal. A.g.e., Vol. VIII, pp.132; L’ Angleterre et les Armeniens (18391904), pp.19-22.
13. For the text of the letter, see Esat Uras, a.g.e.,  pp.485-486.
14. Kamuran Gürün, a.g.e., pp.104.
15. Turkey No.4(1880). No.118/I. Zikr., Bilal N. ªimsir, a.g.e., pp.602-606, Document No.309..
16. Mehmed Hocacioglu, Tarihte Ermeni Mezalimi ve Ermeniler, Istanbul 1976, pp.181-182.
17. For the essence of the letter, see Aspirations et Agissement Revolutionaires des Comites Armeniens…, pp.308-310.
18. Mehmet Hocaoglu, a.g.e., pp.182-185.
19. Louise Nalbandian, a.g.e., pp.90.
20. Louise Nalbandian, a.g.e., pp104-117.
21. Esat Uras, a.g.e., pp.724-725. For the threatening letter to Horen Asikyan, sent by the Hinçak Committee see Aspirations et Agissement Revolutionaires des Comites Armeniens…, pp.310-311
22. Hüseyin Nazim Pasa. Ermeni Olaylari Tarihi, I. Ankara 1994, pp.66.
23. For the chronological order of the rebellions see Kamuran Gürün, a.g.e.,  pp.139-159.
24. Esat Uras,a.g.e.,pp.833; Salahi Ramsdan Sonyel, a.g.e., pp.281.
25. Aspirations et Agissement Revolutionaires des Comites Armeniens…, pp.95-103.
26. For more information on 1909 Armenian incidents see Cemal Pasa Hatirat (1913-1922), Istanbul 1922, pp.249-256; Esat Uras a.g.e., pp.810-829; Mehmet Asaf, 1909 Adana Ermeni Olaylari ve Anilarim, yay. haz., Ismet Parmaksizoglu, Ankara 1982; Salahi R. Sonyal, “The Turco-Armenian Adana Incidents in the Light of Secret British Documents (July, 1908- December-, 1909), “Belleten, Number:20 i (Aralik 197), pp.1291-1338.
27. Jacques de Morgan, a.g.e.,pp. 369: Raymond H. Kevorkan-Paul B. Paboudjian, Les Armeniens dans L’Empire Ottoman, Paris 1992, pp.29.
28.  Jacques de Morgan. A.g.e., pp.369.
29. BOA, DUIT, No. 67/1-I; for the French version of the Regulation see, Hrant Vartabed, L’Empire Ottoman et L’Independence de L’Eglise Armenienne, Publications de Dadjar, No. 2, Constantinople 1917, pp.80-94.
30. Zaven Efendi, who worked as bishop in Erzurum between 1898-1906, in 1910 in Van and between 1919-1913 in Diyarbakir, was elected the Armenian Patriarch to Istanbul. However because of his negative activities he was sent to Baghdad. Following the Mondros Armistice he came back to Istanbul. For more information see Christopher J. Walker, a.g.e., pp.426-427; and see Zeki Sarihan, Kurtulus Savasi Günlügü, I, Ankara 1993, pp.136-137.
31. M.Kemal Atatürk, Nutuk, I, 1919-1920, Istanbul 1967, pp.2; Selahattin Tansel, Mondros’ tan Mudanya’ ya Kadar, I, Anakara 1973, pp.106
32. Ergünöz Akçora, “Milli Mücadele Yillarinda Kurulmus Faydali ve Zararli Cemiyetler,” TDTD, Number: 4 (April 1987), pp.20.
33. For the reference text of Bogos Nubar Pasha see Esat Uras, a.g.e., pp. 923-924.
34. Esat Uras, a.g.e.,pp. 943-944.
35. Esat Uras, a.g.e., pp.943-944
36. Esat Uras, a.g.e., pp.943-947.

Nalbadian says, ”in this period, 50.000-300.000 Armenian were killed.”

David Marshall Lang writes that 200.000 Armenians were killed between 1894-96.

According to Pastirmaciyan there were 100.000-110.000 dead people.

Misasskian writes “At least 300.000 Armenians died.”

Hepsius’s number for Armenian casualties is 88.243.

However, there are some doubts about all these figures. For instance, in 1896 it is said that 20.000 people were killed in Van. But most of the bands activated in Van province came from Iran. Saadettin Pasha says that 6.000 people died in Zeytun. According to Agasi 125 people lost their lives. The British documents state that after the end of the rebellion the people, who died because of the diseases, were 3.000. Yet these deaths are not related to the rebellion.

Bliss’s figure belonging to 1895 is 35.032.

It is evident that the Armenian bandits and rebels killed thousands of Turks in 1890’s and the Armenian casualties during their own revolts would not be more than 20.000.

 Agasi’s words “We killed 20.000 Turks in Zeytun” clarify the facts. With no doubt, Muslim casualties are much more than the Armenian casualties.

REFERENCE:
Gürün, Kamuran, Ermeni Dosyasi, TTK Basimevi, Ankara,1983,pp.167-68

According to the evidence given by the revolutionists who were arrested both in Adapazari and Izmit, if the Russian occupation had taken place, in the estuary of the Sakarya River these explosives would have been used against the Turkish army and Turkish people. Therefore, a plan for massacre and total destruction was going to be put in practise. Some of the Armenians would wear uniforms of the Turkish Army and destroy the Turkish Army from within. When this plan of the Armenians was unveiled, the gang leaders escaped to Yalova and Bursa regions and they robbed and killed the Turkish people they came across.

In spite of all these, the Armenians started to disseminate news and rumours, about Armenians being killed and tortured everywhere. In the end, the government had to take the fundamental measures. Some of the Armenian gangs were arrested and some of them escaped to different regions.

REFERENCE:
Sakarya, Em. Tümg. Ihsan, Belgelerle Ermeni Sorunu, Gnkur. Basimevi, Ankara 1984 pp.238

The Russians attached great importance to the Armenian preparations in Urfa; because Urfa is in a location on the main road that stretches out from Eastern Anatolia to Iskenderun. Food, which would be sufficient for the rebellions for thirty years was stored. The occupation of Van province by the Russians speeded up the provocation and the propaganda of the Armenian rebels. By putting forward that the Russians would come to Urfa by passing through Diyarbakir, and Siverek, they called Armenians for revolt.

One of the most significant features of the revolt preparations was carrying water to the rebels who kept them coming from Maras and Diyarbakir, grinding the wheat to make flour, cooking bread, taking care of the patients, cleaning up the guns, receiving orders, making bullets, making speeches and forming the teams. These would be realized with an armed force, which was comprised of local volunteers and the deserters, and which would be used under the order of the commanders for Zeytun, Sason, Bitlis, Antep regions. They succeeded in materialising these preparations.

While waiting for the appropriate time to start the revolt, during the collection of the weapons and the recruitment of the ones, born in 1894, the Armenian soldiers, who escaped from Zeytun, Sason, Haçin, Diyarbakir provinces joined the rebels. The first revolts started in Germis village, 7.5 kilometers away from Urfa and on Thursday, 19 August 1915 in the center of Urfa.

On the following day of the Urfa incident the Armenian soldiers of the service battalion, who were working at the Tellüllebyaz-Urfa-Siverek road attempted to kill the officers and the Turkish workers, as they had planned before. However they could not achieve this. Later on, the Armenian soldiers, who were working at the Tellülebyaz-Urfa section, martyred Reserve Officer Ibrahim Hilmi through the pickaxes, shovels and the guns they obtained from the guard gendarmes; and they wounded four gendarmes and the alderman.

After this incident on 28 August 1915, the order prevailed until 29 September 1915. Nevertheless, on 29 September 1915, 40 gunshots were made. On the following day, the police and the gendarme, who went to the Armenian quarter to investigate the incident, met the fire and one gendarme had died and two were wounded. The rebels attacked the houses of the Turks and they captured the ones, who were suitable for defence and attack; and martyred 10 women, young and old, from the Muslim families.

The revolt in Urfa was planned and directed by the Armenian committees perfectly. It was established that foreign countries were involved in this incident and that they received help from them.

Following the rebellion, the leaders of the Armenian gangs managed to escape to other regions. The 4th Army Commander informed the Supreme Military Command about the fight through the code number 7664 on the day it ended, 16 October 1915.

REFERENCE:
Sakarya, Em. Tümg. Ihsan, Belgelerle Ermeni Sorunu, Gnkur. Basimevi, Ankara 1984 pp.240-243

Murat (Hamparsun Boyaciyan), born in Sivas, was an Armenian band leader who attacked Shebinkarahisar with about 500 men. Since the road to transport reinforcements to the Turkish Eastern Front passed through the region, it had strategic importance. In case of an Armenian seizure of the region, the reinforcement and the back-up services of the TSK (Turkish Armed Forces) would be delayed and the front operations of the Russian army would become easier. The bandits set fire to the Muslim quarters. They started to kill the Turkish people, they tortured them, first. They attacked the army and gendarmerie detachments.

Reconsidering these conditions, the forces were brought from other fronts and they were sent to Shebinkarahisar. They besieged the Armenian rebels.

The message that was sent to the High Command of the 10th Army Corps Headquarters in Sivas on 15 June 1915 included the statements below:

“It is informed that about 500 Armenian bandits, who were collected from different places, sheltered in the old castle in ªebinkarahisar and revolted.  The Sivas Governor informed that the fights took place between the security forces and the bandits.”

The message sent by the Sivas Governor to the 3rd Army Corps Headquarters on 18-19 June 1915 included the following:

“It is reported that the Shebinkarahisar rebellion was suppressed; about 800 Armenian women, men and children took shelter in the castle; about 200 of the rebels were armed.”

REFERENCE:
Sakarya, Em. Tümg. Ihsan, Belgelerle Ermeni Sorunu, Gnkur. Basimevi, Ankara 1984 pp.227-228

“During the World War I, it was rumoured that the Entente Powers would land on the shores of the Iskenderun Region. So the habitants of seven Armenian villages connected to Samandag subdistrict, did not pay their tax due. They refused to support Turkish Armed Forces. They revolted and escaped to Mount Musa.

Upon this development, although the government sent some officials to talk to them and to persuade them to obey the government orders, the Armenians did not pay attention to this and defended themselves with weapons. Colonel Galip, the commander of the region could not find any other solution therefore he took the roads under the control, that were extending from Mount Musa. Although he wanted to talk to the rebellions individually for the last time, he saw that nobody was left on the mountain. At the end of the search, it was found out that the Armenians came down to the Mediterranean by the slope of a hill that was stretched out to the sea. Following the tracks, Colonel Galip climbed down to the shore and came across 20-30 animal corpses.

The search unveiled that a French war ship, which was observing the shores of Iskenderun, sent a boat to the shore upon the signal given from Mount Musa. This boat carried the Armenian gang leaders and the other rebels to the ships. This information can be obtained from the official channels of the French Government. The searches made the Mount Musa revealed that there were no human corpses on the shore or , even wounded or diseased people. Within this respect, it was concluded to a conclusion that the aim of the book written by Werfel, a Jewish origin, was likely to propagate in order to create a public opinion against the Turkish people. It was translated into all languages; and was made a film.”

This is the Mount Musa Incident. Its objective was to discredit and condemn the Turks. During World War I the French considered Aleppo and Hatay provinces as a significant entrance and exit to the Mediterranean and attached great importance to the Samandag region. Moreover they searched the possibility to land on this region. Because of this reason, they bombarded Iskenderun Province six times. Although they wanted make trouble for the Ottoman government by provoking the Christians, they could not find the opportunity and courage to materialise this initiative.

REFERENCE:
Sakarya, Em. Tümg. Ihsan, Belgelerle Ermeni Sorunu, Gnkur. Basimevi, Ankara 1984 pp.245-246

After a period of time, in Spring 1915, 600 bandits, who were Armenians from Zeytun, Saimbeyli and Maras, gathered and revolted between Maras and the Bahçe Town; and Findikçik village, which was 30 kilometres distant from Ayvalik Subdistrict. They burned four Turkish villages nearby this village. The Armenians in Maras region also started to get together in Findikçik, the center of the rebellion. The village was prepared for the defense.

Meanwhile, although a gendarme detachment was sent to the rebellion region, no positive results were achieved. Upon this, 312th Infantry Regiment from Islahiye and infantry battalion from Belen and a mountain cannon team were sent to the Findikçik region and the revolt was suppressed. More than 10 Turkish villages were set on fire and about 2.000 Turkish people were killed violently in this incident.

REFERENCE:
Sakarya, Em. Tümg. Ihsan, Belgelerle Ermeni Sorunu, Gnkur. Basimevi, Ankara 1984 pp.243-244

The Armenian bands that had modern weapons and even medical equipment, started assaults everywhere in groups 60-70, by uniting with the bandits who had escaped from Izmit and Adapazari. It was established that the leaders of the Armenian gangs were the Chief Priest Vekil Barkef and his secretary Sokpas, the Principal of Bursa Armenian School, porter of the church and the religious people.

REFERENCE:
Sakarya, Em. Tümg. Ihsan, Belgelerle Ermeni Sorunu, Gnkur. Basimevi, Ankara 1984 pp.239