History Podcasts

How Did Austria Take Belgrade but Lose in Serbia? The Faltering Serbian Campaign

How Did Austria Take Belgrade but Lose in Serbia? The Faltering Serbian Campaign

The Serbian Martyr, French postcard, 1919. Personifications of Germany and Austria-Hungary are shown attacking a defensive Hungary in front. Meanwhile the Kingdom of Bulgaria is shown about to attack Serbia in the back.

Following the death of Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand in June 1914 by Serbian assassin Gavrilo Princip, Austria handed Serbia the infamous ‘ultimatum’. When this was ultimately rejected, Austria would declare war on Serbia the very next month.

In what began as attempt to crack-down on Serbian defiance, and to display the unity and strength of the Austro-Hungarian nation, this crisis would intensify hostilities within the Balkans. This conflict would be swept up into the complex web of European alliances and hostilities, eventually culminating in the outbreak of World War One.

Dan speaks to Professor Michael Neiberg about the famous stand of the US Marine Corps during the Battle of Belleau Wood, part of the German Spring Offensive in 1918.

Listen Now

Being fought throughout The Great War, the Serbian Campaign would be an everlasting and costly cause of frustration for the Austrian forces. Despite at several points seeming in the military ascendancy, Austria would be repelled, or forced to retreat time and time again before the eventual allied victory of November 1918.

One microcosmic example of the Serbian Campaign can be found in the short-lived Austrian occupation of Belgrade in the winter of 1914.

Russians stopped in Poland

Having already stopped the Russian advance on Krakow (capital of Austrian Poland) Conrad von Hötzendorf ordered the Austrian army to march on a Russian force which was paused in southern Poland.

Franz Graf Conrad von Hötzendorf, Austro-Hungarian general, Chief of the General Staff of the Austro-Hungarian Army.

The Russians had stopped due to disputes between its commanders Russki and Iwanow, the former advocated regrouping while the latter advocated a march on Budapest. The Austrians were able to drive back the hesitating Russians preventing Iwanow’s planned offensive into Hungary.

This would, however, be Austria’s final operation independent from Germany. Although this victory was important the Austrians had 8 million men fewer than Russia in terms of potential conscripts.

In this special Valentine’s Day edition of Our Site LIVE, Dan Snow is joined by special guests for an exploration of love and romance across the ages. Chris Laoutaris will discuss Shakespeare and love, while Laura Doan will explore female homosexuality in World War One and Two.

Watch Now

In addition to that pressure on manpower German commander-in-chief Erich von Falkenhayn had announced on 1 December that no further reinforcements would be sent to the eastern front.

Austrians take Belgrade

The Serbians had inflicted heavy losses on the Austrians in their crossing on the Kolubara River and halted their advance but Belgrade still lay dangerously close to the front lines. It was decided therefore that the Serbian High Command ought to evacuate from Belgrade.

‘Serbian Troops Marching Through the Countryside’ (Everett Marshall, 1914).

They did so on 29 November and by 1 December Austrian troops had taken the city. Seizing Belgrade had been the only war objective in the Austrian declaration of war made in July. The army paraded through the Serbian capital on 3 December and the were celebrations in Vienna for the impending victory.

Turning tides

While some Austrians were parading in Belgrade others spent 3 December fighting the Serbian army at Arandelovac. The Serbians had recently received fresh ammunition from the French and were able to inflict a decisive defeat on the Austrians.

Do Lord Kitchener proud. Your country needs you to get this cool new face covering!

Shop Now

In their rush to take Belgrade the Austrian forces had become over extended and by 4 December they were in full retreat under Serbian pressure.

Archduke Karl, the heir to the Austrian throne, still believed the war in the east to be successful, so much so as to predict the imminent defeat of the Russians. He was one of a number of leaders who, not truly grasping the situation on the ground, suggested the Western Front was unimportant and that other options should be explored, for instance an invasion of Italy.

Archduke Karl would later go on to become Charles I of Austria, the last Emperor of Austria.

This lack of understanding among senior military and political figures was one of the most enduring and dangerous characteristics of the Great War.


  • Da bi dobijali obaveštenja o promeni cene potrebno je da kliknete Prati cenu dugme koje se nalazi na dnu svakog oglasa i unesete Vašu mail adresu.
1-6 od 6 rezultata
1-6 od 6
1-6 od 6 rezultata

Prati pretragu " part time job (Beograd) "

Vi se opustite, Gogi će Vas obavestiti kad pronađe nove oglase za tražene ključne reči.

Gogi će vas obavestiti kada pronađe nove oglase.

Messerschmitt Bf 109: The Yugoslav Story (Volume II)

JAMES ROSENQUIST Sarajevo 1984 - PLAKAT

OVO JE ORIGINALNI PLAKAT ZIMSKE OLIMPIJADE u SARAJEVU 1984 62 x 85 cm urolan samo srbija ovaj plakat ne saljem u inostranstvo XIV Zimske olimpijske igre su održane 1984. godine u Sarajevu, tadašnjoj Socijalističkoj Federativnoj Republici Jugoslaviji. Ostali gradovi kandidati za Olimpijske igre su bili Saporo, Japan i Falun/Geteborg, Švedska. Ovo su bile prve zimske i druge zaredom igre generalno održane u Istočnoj Evropi, na govornom području slovenskih jezika i u socijalističkoj zemlji, kao i prve i za sada jedine Olimpijske igre održane u državi iz Pokreta nesvrstanih i u većinski muslimanskom gradu. Takođe, ovo je bilo prvi put da se Olimpijske igre organizuju na Balkanskom poluostrvu nakon prvih u modernom dobu u Atini. Sarajevo je organizaciju zimskih olimpijskih medalja dobilo u konkurenciji s japanskim Saporom i zajedničkom kandidaturom švedskih gradova Falun i Geteborg. MOK se pri tome delimično vodio političkim razlozima - kao nesvrstana zemlja, tadašnja Jugoslavija je davala manje prilike za hladnoratovske bojkote - ali glavni je motiv ipak bila želja da se Igre, kao simbol svjetskog mira i bratstva među ljudima - održe u gradu koji je dotada obično bio vezivan za izbijanje Prvog svjetskog rata. Za vlasti Jugoslavije sarajevske Olimpijske igre su bile sjajna prilika da državu svetu predstave u najboljem mogućem svetlu, i u tom nastojanju ih nije omela ni velika ekonomska kriza koja je SFRJ bila pogodila početkom 1980-ih. U Igre su utrošena velika sredstva, te sagrađen veliki broj impozantnih građevina i ostale infrastrukture. U tome su vlasti imale podršku Sarajlija, a već pre samog održavanja su Igre dovele do povećanja interesa za zimske sportove, dotada gotovo nepoznate u tom delu Jugoslavije. ------------------------------------------------ this is an original poster by JAMES ROSENQUIST print - offset lithography 62 x 85 cm, 24,4 x 33,5 in serbia only I do not send this poster abroad The poster has the official Yugoslavian Olympic logo in the lower left corner along with the 1984 official logo and is an official Olympics poster. The 1984 Winter Olympics, officially known as the XIV Olympic Winter Games (French: XIVes Jeux olympiques d`hiver Serbo-Croatian: XIV. zimske olimpijske igre / XIV Зимске олимпијске игре Macedonian: XIV Зимски олимписки игри Slovene: XIV olimpijske zimske igre), was a winter multi-sport event which took place from 8–19 February 1984 in Sarajevo, Yugoslavia, in what is now Bosnia and Herzegovina. Other candidate cities were Sapporo, Japan and Gothenburg, Sweden. It was the first Winter Olympic Games held in a socialist state and in a Slavic language-speaking country. It was also the second Olympics overall, as well as the second consecutive Olympics, to be held in a socialist and in a Slavic language-speaking country after the 1980 Summer Olympics were held in Moscow, Soviet Union. Furthermore, it was the first Olympics held in the Balkans after the first modern Games in Athens. The Sarajevo games have also been the only Olympics so far to be hosted by a Non-Aligned Movement member. The host city for the XIV Winter Olympics was announced on 18 May 1978 during an 80th session of the International Olympic Committee in Athens, Greece. Sarajevo was selected over Sapporo, Japan (which hosted the games 12 years earlier) by a margin of three votes. Gothenburg was the first city in Sweden to lose a Winter Olympics bid, as other Swedish cities such as Falun and Östersund would later lose their consecutive bids to Calgary, Albertville, Lillehammer, Nagano, and Salt Lake City respectively. Sarajevo, capital of present-day Bosnia and Herzegovina, was part of the united Yugoslavia at the time. The torch relay for the 1984 Winter Olympics started in Olympia and then proceeded by airplane to Dubrovnik. The total distance of the torch relay through Yugoslavia was 5,289 kilometres (3,286 mi) (plus 2,879 kilometres (1,789 mi) of local routes). There were two main routes – one in the west (Split – Ljubljana – Zagreb – Sarajevo with 2,602 kilometres (1,617 mi) of length) and the other in the east (Skopje – Novi Sad – Belgrade – Sarajevo with 2,687 kilometres (1,670 mi) of length). The final torchbearer, from a total of 1600, was figure skater Sanda Dubravčić, who received the torch from skier runner Ivo Čarman. Today one of the two original torches is in Slovenia in a private collection in Žalec, Slovenia. Also 20 more torches are in Greece owned by individual athletes, who were the torchbearers from Ancient Olympia to the nearby military airport and from Athens Domestic Airport to the Panathinaikon Stadium where the Ceremony of handing over the Olympic Flame to the Sarajevo Olympic Games Committee occurred. ----------------------------------------- James Rosenquist (November 29, 1933 – March 31, 2017) was an American artist and one of the proponents of the pop art movement. Drawing from his background working in sign painting, Rosenquist`s pieces often explored the role of advertising and consumer culture in art and society, utilizing techniques he learned making commercial art to depict popular cultural icons and mundane everyday objects. While his works have often been compared to those from other key figures of the pop art movement, such as Andy Warhol and Roy Lichtenstein, Rosenquist`s pieces were unique in the way that they often employed elements of surrealism using fragments of advertisements and cultural imagery to emphasize the overwhelming nature of ads. He was a 2001 inductee into the Florida Artists Hall of Fame. Rosenquist was born on November 29, 1933, in Grand Forks, North Dakota, the only child of Louis and Ruth Rosenquist. His parents were amateur pilots of Swedish descent who moved from town to town to look for work, finally settling in Minneapolis, Minnesota. His mother, who was also a painter, encouraged her son to have an artistic interest. In junior high school, Rosenquist won a short-term scholarship to study at the Minneapolis School of Art and subsequently studied painting at the University of Minnesota from 1952 to 1954. In 1955, at the age of 21, he moved to New York City on scholarship to study at the Art Students League, studying under painters such as Edwin Dickinson and George Grosz. Talking about his experience at the Art Students League, Rosenquist said `I studied only with the abstract artists. They had commercial artists there teaching commercial work, I didn`t bother with that. I was only interested in -- see, here`s how it started. I was interested in learning how to paint the Sistine Chapel. It sounds ambitious, but I wanted to go to mural school`. While studying in New York, Rosenquist took up a job as a chauffeur, before deciding to join the International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades. As a member of the union, Rosenquist would paint billboards around Times Square, ultimately becoming the lead painter for Artkraft‐Strauss and painting displays and windows across Fifth Avenue. By 1960, Rosenquist abandoned painting signs after a friend died by falling from scaffolding on the job. Instead of working on commercial pieces, he chose to focus on personal projects in his own studio, developing his own distinct style of painting that retained the kind of imagery, bold hues, and scale that he utilized while he painted billboards. Rosenquist`s career in commercial art began when he was 18, after his mother encouraged him to pursue a summer job painting. He started by painting Phillips 66 signs, going to gas stations from North Dakota to Wisconsin. After leaving school, Rosenquist took a series of odd jobs and then turned to sign painting. From 1957 to 1960, Rosenquist earned his living as a billboard painter. Rosenquist applied sign-painting techniques to the large-scale paintings he began creating in 1960. Like other pop artists, Rosenquist adapted the visual language of advertising and pop culture to the context of fine art. `I painted billboards above every candy store in Brooklyn. `I got so I could paint a Schenley whiskey bottle in my sleep`, he wrote in his 2009 autobiography, Painting Below Zero: Notes on a Life in Art. Time magazine stated that `his powerful graphic style and painted montages helped define the 1960s Pop Art movement.` In 2003, art critic Peter Schjeldahl asked of Rosenquist`s application of sign painting techniques to fine art thus: `[W]as importing the method into art a bit of a cheap trick? So were Warhol`s photo silk-screening and Lichtenstein`s lining of panels from comic strips. The goal in all cases was to fuse painting aesthetics with the semiotics of media-drenched contemporary reality. The naked efficiency of anti-personal artmaking defines classic Pop. It`s as if someone were inviting you to inspect the fist with which he simultaneously punches you.` Rosenquist had his first two solo exhibitions at the Green Gallery in 1962 and 1963. He exhibited his painting F-111, a room-scale painting, at the Leo Castelli Gallery in 1965, with which he achieved international acclaim. But Rosenquist said the following about his involvement in the Pop Art movement: `They [art critics] called me a Pop artist because I used recognizable imagery. The critics like to group people together. I didn`t meet Andy Warhol until 1964. I did not really know Andy or Roy Lichtenstein that well. We all emerged separately.` In 1971 Rosenquist came to South Florida after receiving an offer from Donald Saff, dean of the University of South Florida`s College of Fine Arts, to participate in the school`s Graphicstudio, a collaborative art initiative. In the years following Rosenquist remained a key contributor to the studio, cooperating with students and other artists and producing numerous works of his own, ultimately creating his Aripeka studio in 1976. Rosenquist would continue to travel to Florida throughout his career with the artist developing several commissioned works for the community including two murals for Florida`s state capitol building and a sculpture for Johns Hopkins All Children`s Hospital, in addition to serving on the Tampa Museum of Art`s Board of Trustees. Rosenquist`s paintings have been on display in the lobby of Key Tower in Cleveland, Ohio. His F-111 was displayed there for many years. After his acclaim, Rosenquist produced large-scale commissions. This includes the three-painting suite The Swimmer in the Econo-mist (1997–1998) for Deutsche Guggenheim, Berlin, Germany, and a painting that was planned for the ceiling of the Palais de Chaillot in Paris, France. Zone: A key work in the development of his signature style, Rosenquist cites his 1961 work Zone as a turning point in the development of his own personal aesthetic, with the piece being the first to employ monumental scale, a recurring aspect of Rosenquist`s art that is exemplified in his many murals. Zone also served as a stepping stone in Rosenquist`s body of work in that it served as a departure from his previous works, which saw him move away from previous experiments in Abstract Expressionism, with the picture being described by Rosenquist as his first pop piece. Done in oil on two separate pieces of canvas, the work exemplifies the beginnings of the pop art movement in the way that Rosenquist takes imagery from mass media, using a picture of a tomato and a clipping from an ad for hand cream. The two images are divided into separate zones, which serve to focus on visual parallels such as the arch of the tomato stem and the woman`s eyelashes, as well as illustrating Rosenquist`s signature, often surreal, fragmented composition. President Elect: Released the same year as Zone, James Rosenquist`s President Elect is among one his most well-known pieces, with the artist translating a portrait of John F. Kennedy from a campaign poster onto a towering display. The painting also includes a superimposed picture of hand holding cake in greyscale, as well as the back of a Chevrolet. Rosenquist uses icons in pop culture to examine fame and the relationship between advertising and the consumer, exploring the kind of fame and iconography that comes with American politics. With President Elect, Rosenquist seeks to make a statement on the new role that advertising and mass media had during the Kennedy`s campaign. `I was very interested at that time in people who advertised themselves,` said Rosenquist. `Why did they put up an advertisement of themselves? So that was his face. And his promise was half a Chevrolet and a piece of stale cake.` In the painting, Rosenquist contrasts the portrait of Kennedy with the cake and the Chevrolet to show how each element is marketed to American consumers. F-111: In 1965, James Rosenquist completed F-111, one of the largest and most ambitious works in his collection.2 Spanning over 83 feet and 23 canvases, the painting`s scale evokes Rosenquist`s work on billboards, illustrating a life-sized depiction of the F-111 Aardvark aircraft. The painting initially was intended to cover all four walls of the main room within the Castelli gallery in Manhattan, occupying the entirety of each wall without any kind of visual relief, to cast an imposing, continuous view of the war. Painted during the Vietnam war, F-111 contrasts pictures from the war with commercial imagery from advertisements, showing tires, a cake, lightbulbs, a girl in a salon hairdryer, bubbles, and spaghetti. Rosenquist juxtaposes the imagery from the ads against the plane as a way to imply graphic scenes from the war, with broken light bulbs near the cockpit mirroring bombs dropping from the plane, and the hood of the hairdryer echoing the look of a missile. Rosenquist uses the painting to question the role of marketing and coverage of the war describing the plane as `flying through the flak of consumer society to question the collusion between the Vietnam death machine, consumerism, the media, and advertising,`. Rosenquist received numerous honors, including selection as `Art In America Young Talent USA` in 1963, appointment to a six-year term on the Board of the National Council of the Arts in 1978, and receiving the Golden Plate Award from the American Academy of Achievement in 1988. In 2002, the Fundación Cristóbal Gabarrón conferred upon him its annual international award for art, in recognition of his contributions to universal culture. Beginning with his first early-career retrospectives in 1972 organized by the Whitney Museum of American Art, New York City, and the Wallraf-Richartz Museum, Cologne, Rosenquist`s work was the subject of several gallery and museum exhibitions, both in the United States and abroad. The Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum organized a full-career retrospective in 2003, which traveled internationally, and was organized by curators Walter Hopps and Sarah Bancroft. His F-111, shown at The Jewish Museum in 1965, was mentioned in a chapter of Polaroids from the Dead by Douglas Coupland. Rosenquist married twice and had two children. With his first wife, Mary Lou Adams, whom he married on June 5, 1960, he had one child: John. His first marriage ended in divorce. In 1976, a year after his divorce, he moved to Aripeka, Florida. His second wife was Mimi Thompson, whom he married on April 18, 1987, by whom he had one child: Lily. On April 25, 2009, a fire swept through Hernando County, Florida, where Rosenquist had lived for 30 years, burning his house, studios, and warehouse. All of his paintings stored on his property were destroyed, including art for an upcoming show. Rosenquist died at his home in New York City on March 31, 2017, after a long illness he was 83 years old. His survivors include his wife, Thompson one daughter, Lily one son, John and a grandson, Oscar.

Bespeco MS11 Mic Stalak

Finally an hybrid microphone boom stand that uses materials technically proper for any function. After many years of manufacturing experience we have been able to mix plastic and metallic materials in order to make the product lightweight in the upper part and heavy where needed, moving down the barycentre. On the critical points of sliding and rotation we obtained fluid movements and strong tighten, avoiding the materials get scratched or damaged during the time. All that studied and elaborated on a perspective of totally innovative design. MS11 Hybrid is addressed to a professional market lover of functional details that, in our opinion, can enjoy our reliable job. Maximum Height 202 cm. Maximum Opening 64 cm. Weight 2,7 Kg Maximum Carriage Capacity 4 Kg in punta (on top) Total Volume 0,08 cmb Package 6 Color black + gray

HAWKER : The Yugoslav Story

HAWKER Aleksandar M. Ognjević Hurricane, Fury & Hind The Yugoslav Story Operation Record 1931-1941 Belgrade, 2019. Tvrd povez, format 29 cm Engleski jezik, 196 strana Bogato ilustrovano na kvalitetnom papiru Yugoslavia was a larger user of Hawker planes, Yugoslav Furies saw action against Axis forces in the German invasion of 1941. On 6 April 1941, a squadron of Furies took off against the invading German Messerschmitt Bf 109Es and Messerschmitt Bf 110s. In the resulting air battle 10 Furies were destroyed, almost the entire squadronThe rest of the Yugoslav Furies were destroyed when they became unserviceable or at the time of Armistice on 15 April. In late 1937, the Royal Yugoslav Air Force (Serbo-Croatian: Vazduhoplovstvo Vojske Kraljevine Jugoslavije, VVKJ) placed an order with Hawker Aircraft for twelve Hawker Hurricane Mk I fighters, the first foreign purchase of the aircraft. The Royal Yugoslav Air Force (VVKJ) operated the British Hawker Hurricane Mk I from 1938 to 1941. Between 1938 and 1940, the VVKJ obtained 24 Hurricane Mk Is from early production batches, marking the first foreign sale of the aircraft. Twenty additional aircraft were built by Zmaj under licence in Yugoslavia. When the country was drawn into World War II by the German-led Axis invasion of April 1941, a total of 41 Hurricane Mk I’s were in service as fighters. They achieved some successes against Luftwaffe aircraft, but all Yugoslav Hurricanes were destroyed or captured during the 11-day invasion. This book descrbes the history It contains more than 50 testimonies, written statements, orders and observations by direct participants from all sides that take part in 1941 April war. It also contains a completely unknown interview with Engineer Kosta Siv?ev, who participated in the unprecedented modification of the Hurricane to a Daimler Benz DB601 A engine (LVT-1 Project), describing the entire job in smallest details. Special technical drawing of modified plane isinside as well. The book contains six maps, as well as Appendix 10 (Places with Geographical Coordinates) with the exact GPS coordinates of each place (130+) mentioned. With the help of Appendix 11 (Personal Names), you will quickly find some of the (300+) names in the book. Beautifully selected photographs and documents (254+3). Exactly 50 color profiles and views prepared by Aerospace Engineer Dragan Šaler, who evoke in detail the little known VVKJ Hawkers coloring schemes and markings, as well as several unusual and unique modifications made at the Zmaj and Ikarus airplane factories…

A Bulwark Against Germany 1917 (BORBA SLOVENACA) RETKO!

Ladik Katalin - Bludna metla

U dobrom stanju! Redje u ponudi! Katalin Ladik (rođena 25. oktobra 1942. u Novom Sadu) je jugoslovensko-mađarski pesnik, izvođač i filmski stvaralac. Katalin Ladik počela je pisati 1962. godine radeći kao bankarski činovnik. Bila je radijska voditeljica i pozorišna glumica u Novom Sadu, kasnije je radila za film i televiziju. 1990. postala je urednica i predavala u oblastima muzike i pozorišta. Kao umetnički medij koristi vizuelnu poeziju, umetnost pošte, radio igre, prozu, kolaž, fotografiju, film i eksperimentalnu muziku. Ladik istražuje jezik vizuelnim i vokalnim izrazima, kao i kretanjem i gestovima. Ladik se više puta pojavljivao u kontekstu predstava, događaja i pozorišnih komada koji se često dešavaju u urbanom okruženju, ali i u prirodi. Bila je član umetničkog kolektiva Bosch + Bosch. Katalin Ladik živi i radi naizmenično u Novom Sadu (Srbija), Budimpešti (Mađarska) i na ostrvu Hvar (Hrvatska). U svojoj domovini postala je legendarna i kontroverzna figura u ranim šezdesetim godinama, pre svega kroz feminističko-šamanističku zvučnu poeziju i gole predstave. Ladik je primio nekoliko nagrada i igrao na brojnim nacionalnim i međunarodnim izložbama. 1977. Godine dala je ime sebi kao učesnica 10. međunarodnog festivala zvučne poezije u Amsterdamu. U 2010. godini u Muzeju savremene umetnosti Vojvodine u Novom Sadu održana je retrospektiva, koja je privukla nacionalnu pažnju, a 2017. godine bila je pozvana da učestvuje u dokumentarnoj 14. Takođe je uključena u seriju izložbi Feministička avangarda. Katalin Ladik (born Novi Sad, October 25, 1942) is a Hungarian poet, performance artist and actress. She was born in Novi Sad, Yugoslavia (now called Serbia) and in the last 20 years she has lived and worked alternately in Novi Sad, Serbia, in Budapest, Hungary and on the island of Hvar, Croatia. Parallel to her written poems she also creates sound poems and visual poems, performance art, writes and performs experimental music and audio plays. She is also a performer and an experimental artist (happenings, mail art, experimental theatrical plays). She explores language through visual and vocal expressions, as well as movement and gestures. Her work includes collages, photography, records, performances and happenings in both urban and natural environments. Katalin Ladik studied at the Economic High School of Novi Sad between 1961 and 1963. She then joined the Dramski Studio (Drama Studio) acting school in Novi Sad, between 1964 and 1966. Between 1961 and 1963, she worked as a bank assistant. During this time, in 1962, she began to write poetry. From 1963 to 1977 she worked for Radio Novi Sad. She joined the newly established Novi Sad Theatre in 1974, becoming a member of its permanent ensemble in 1977 and working there until 1992.[1] She primarily acted in dramatic roles. Over the years, she also played major and minor roles in various TV-films and movies. She led the poetry sections of literary magazines Élet és Irodalom (1993–94) and Cigányfúró (1994–99). Between 1993 and 1998 she taught at Hangár musical and theatrical education center. She is a member of the Hungarian Writers` Union, the Hungarian Belletrists Association, the Association of Hungarian Creative Artists and the Hungarian PEN Club. Awards Katalin Ladik has earned various awards, including the Kassák Lajos Award (1991), the award of Mikes Kelemen Kör (Mikes International – Association for Hungarian Art, Literature and Science in the Netherlands) (2000), the József Attila Prize (2001), the Mediawave Parallel Culture Award (2003), the National Award for Culture of the Republic of Serbia (2009), and the Laurel Wreath Award of Hungary (2012). In 2015, she received the Klára Herczeg Award in senior category from the Studio of Young Artists’ Association (Hungary).[2] In 2016, she was awarded with the Lennon Ono Grant for Peace.[3] Her awards for acting include the Oktobarska nagrada grada Novog Sada (October Award of the City of Novi Sad), a collective award to the cast of Radio Novi Sad in 1967 first place at Smotra vojvođanskih profesionalnih pozorišta (Festival of Professional Theatres in Vojvodina) in 1978, for the role of Masha in Three Sisters, directed by György Harag, performed at the Novi Sad Theatre. The same role earned her the first place of Udruženje dramskih umetnika Srbije / Association of Dramatic Artists of Serbia, in 1979. Katalin Ladik also received the Magyar Televízió Elnöki Nívódíja / Award of the President of Hungarian Television for Acting Excellence for acting in András Rajnai’s TV film series, Televíziós mesék felnőtteknek (Television Tales for Adults) in 1980. In 1986, she was awarded first place at Smotra vojvođanskih profesionalnih pozorišta / Festival of Professional Theaters in Vojvodina for the role of Skinner in Howard Barker’s The Castle, directed by David Gothard, performed at the National Theatre in Subotica. 2017 Artisjus Literary Award for her poetry volume „A víz emlékezete” („The Memory of Water”) 2017 Janus Pannonius Filius Ursae Award for her literary oeuvre for „being defiant, provocative, and confrontational towards the actual literary canons” Poetry Katalin Ladik became known after 1962 through her surreal and erotic poems. In addition to a number of books in Hungarian, volumes of her poetry were published in Yugoslavia, France, Italy and the United States. Her poems also appeared in various magazines and anthologies worldwide, translated into Spanish, German, Polish, Bulgarian, Slovakian, Hindi, Chinese, Indonesian, Romanian, Macedonian, Rusyn and Slovenian. `She is able to embody the sense of poetry as action. I saw one of her readings in Bratislava at Ars Poetica Festival and she was the only poet able to electrize the audience without any translation. (. ) She manages to pass linguistic barriers but, again, any translation of her poetry is at least difficult to be made (or should I say “performed`). Her activity covers a wide area that includes performance and sound poetry, with a force that captures any kind of audience no matter how illiterate in contemporary poetry they can be.` Poetry Depot Prose Her first novel, entitled Élhetek az arcodon? (Can I Live on Your Face?) was published in 2007 by Nyitott Könyvműhely. It is considered to be an eminent work in Hungarian Avant-garde literature. It is partly autobiographical, partly self-reflecting. The novel alternates between reality and fiction, prose and poetry, sometimes switching to a prose poem style. Its main target audience is that part of the artists’ community who are receptive to esoteric allusions. The book is about three women: the Editor, who lives in Budapest, the Artist, and the Glasswoman who lives in Novi Sad, all of whom bear the same name. The shared name determines their lives. Initially, they are unaware of one another, but throughout the book their lives get gradually intertwined. After they get to know one another, they begin to live each other`s life, which changes everything for them forever. One of the peculiarities about the book is the uniquely rich textual documentation (letters, newspaper articles, posters) and the large number of photos. Publications Volumes in original language Ballada az ezüstbicikliről (Ballad of Silver Bike) | poems | Hungarian | with gramophone recording | Forum, Novi Sad, 1969 Elindultak a kis piros bulldózerek (The Small, Red Bulldosers Have Taken Off) | poems | Hungarian | Forum, Novi Sad, 1971 Mesék a hétfejű varrógépről (Stories of the Seven-Headed Sewing Machine) | poems | Hungarian | Forum, Novi Sad, 1978 Ikarosz a metrón (Icarus on the Subway) | poems | Hungarian | Forum, Novi Sad, 1981 A parázna söprű – Bludna metla (The Promiscuous Broom) | poems | Hungarian-Serbian bilingual | Forum, Novi Sad, 1984 Kiűzetés (Exile) | poems | Hungarian | Magvető, Budapest, 1988 Jegyesség (Engagement) | poems | Hungarian | Fekete Sas - Orpheusz, Budapest, 1994 A négydimenziós ablak (The Four-Dimensional Window) | poems | Hungarian | Fekete Sas, Budapest, 1998 Fűketrec (Grass-Cage) | poems | Hungarian | Orpheusz, Budapest, 2004 Élhetek az arcodon? (Can I Live on Your Face?) | prose | Hungarian | Nyitott Könyvműhely, Budapest, 2007 Belső vízözön (Deluge Inside) | poems | Hungarian | Parnasszus, Budapest, 2011 Ladik Katalin legszebb versei (The Most Beautiful Poems of Katalin Ladik) | poems | Hungarian | AB-ART, Bratislava, 2012 A víz emlékezete (The Memory of Water) | poems | Hungarian | Kalligram, Budapest, 2016 Translated volumes Poesie Erotiche (Erotic Poems) | poems | Italian | selected and translated by: Giacomo Scotti | La Sfinge, Naples, 1983 Erogen Zoon | poems | Serbian | translated by: Katalin Ladik, Selimir Radulović, Judita Šalgo, Arpad Vicko | Književna Zajednica Novog Sada, Novi Sad, 1987 Stories of the Seven-Headed Sewing Machine | poems | English | translated by: Emöke Z. B’Racz | New Native Press, Sylva, 1992 Poèmes (Poems) | poems | French | selected by: Tibor Papp | translated by: Katalin Kluge, Tibor Tardos | CiPM / Spectres Familiers, Marseille, 1999 Ikarova senka (Icarus’ Shadow) | poems | Serbian | translated by: Katalin Ladik, Selimir Radulović, Judita Šalgo, Arpad Vicko, Draginja Ramadanski | Orpheus, Novi Sad, 2004 Stories of the Seven-Headed Sewing Machine | poems | English | translated by: Emöke Z. B’Racz | Burning Bush Press, Asheville, 2005 Engagement | poems | English | translated by: Emöke Z. B’Racz | Burning Bush Press, Asheville, 2006 Kavez od trave (Grass-Cage) | poems | Croatian | translated by: Kristina Peternai | Matica Hrvatska, Osijek, 2007 E-books Fűketrec (Grass-Cage) | poems | Hungarian | Mikes International, The Hague, 2003 | downloadable, pdf format Fűketrec (Grass-Cage) | poems | Hungarian | Magyar Elektronikus Könyvtár (MEK), 2003 | downloadable, multiple formats A négydimenziós ablak (The Four-Dimensional Window) | poems | Hungarian | Magyar Elektronikus Könyvtár (MEK), 2004 | downloadable, multiple formats Ikarosz biciklijén (On Icarus’ Bicycle) | poems | Hungarian | Magyar Elektronikus Könyvtár (MEK), 2004 | downloadable, multiple formats Kiűzetés

Engagement) | poems | Hungarian | Magyar Elektronikus Könyvtár (MEK), 2004 | downloadable, multiple formats A négydimenziós ablak (The Four-Dimensional Window) | poems | Hungarian | Mikes International, The Hague, 2004 | downloadable, pdf format Kiűzetés


How Did Austria Take Belgrade but Lose in Serbia? The Faltering Serbian Campaign - History

AMBASSADOR KIRAKOSSIAN BRINGS NEW FOCUS TO MASSACRES OF 1894-1896

Holy Cross Armenian Catholic Church "Nishan and Margrit Atinizian
Hall" was the venue on Sunday, December 5 for a presentation of
Armenian ambassador to the US Dr. Arman Kirakossian’s new book,
published by Wayne University Press and sponsored by Roupen and Nina
Terzians of Tekeyan Cultural Association. The event, sponsored by the
Armenian Cultural Foundation, the Armenian Catholic Church and the
Tekeyan Cultural Association, featured Prof. Simon Payaslian of Clark
University as the main speaker.

The ambassador, while in Boston, also presided over the first annual
Hovhannes Badalian Music Fund banquet on December 4 at the Hellenic
Cultural Center in Watertown.

In addition, the ambassador on December 5 was the honored guest at the
special tribute to renowned opera star, Elvira Ouzounian, on the
occasion of her 40th anniversary in her field.

Kirakossian’s book, "The Armenian Massacres 1894-1896, US Media
Testimony", with a foreword by former Sen. Robert Dole, focused on the
history and the challenges to the Armenian community in Turkey,
leading up to the massacres carried out by the order of Sultan Abdul
Hamid 1894-1896.

Following an introduction by Mark Mamigonian, director of publications
for the National Armenian Association for Studies and Research
(NAASR), Payaslian turned to the subject of how Kirakossian has
portrayed the impact of the massacres in the US periodicals (not daily
newspapers). Pointing out that the many articles were published in
periodicals such as The Atlantic Monthly, The Nation and The Catholic
World at the time, made it clear that the Western world was quite
aware of what was happening to the Armenians in Turkey.

Payaslian then quoted Germany’s Premier Otto von Bismarck, who in
1883, said, "the so-called reforms are ideal and theoretical. Their
practical significance is doubtful".

In fact, Payaslian recounted, Turks increased their attacks on six
Armenian vilayets, creating a perilous environment, arousing
chauvinism and paranoia. The killings became significant in 1894, when
as many as 3.000 Armenians were killed in Sassoon.

"No Western country intervened", said Payaslian. "They were not
interested in the Armenia, they were interested in the commercial and
political gains they could achieve in the region. Hamid felt there was
no real reason to refrain from attacking the Armenians".

Author Kirakossian talked about his research methods and the materials
he has been able to use. Kirakossian who has a doctorate in history,
amongst other degrees, said, "I try to find time from my daily work to
visit the Library of Congress and other libraries to look for new
materials on the Armenian Question and British and US diplomacy
towards the Armenians".

Kirakossian said, "I used periodicals, which are more analytical,
rather than newspapers. I wanted to present these materials, because
we have started to forget about the Abdul Hamid period. There has been
a great deal more focus on the Genocide. But the point is, there was
genocidal policy before the years 1915-1923".

Kirakossian’s next book will deal with the documentation of the
1894-1896 in the British press.

During the question and answer period, following the two talks,
Kirakossian paid tribute to his father, also an historian and foreign
minister at the time, which, during the Soviet period wrote four
volumes that deal with the Armenian Genocide.

"My father was my teacher. He was the first to write about the
Genocide. He was limited because of working during the Soviet period.
He couldn’t work in foreign archives. When I started to work in the
1980s, I could go to London, Moscow. I could study diplomatic
correspondence. My father simply did not have the chance to access to
western sources", said Kirakossian.

Answering a question regarding a recent article in the Azg newspaper
in Yerevan, that the ambassador is planning to stay in US and carry on
his scientific work instead of returning to the Foreign Ministry
service in Yerevan, Kirakossian said, "I am still representing the
Republic of Armenia in the United States, but when the time comes I
will return to Yerevan and continue my diplomatic career, and carry on
my work in the field of Armenian political studies at the same time".

Payaslian said that Armenian leaders did learn they "had to organize
and form closer ties with the outside world".

Kirakossian’s work represents important documentation of what occored
in the late 19th century.

AZG Armenian Daily #225, 15/12/2004

Terrorist Armenians raped, tortured, massacred millions of innocent and
defenceless Turks, Jews, Kurds, Arabs and other non-Armenians in
Ottoman Eastern Anatolia during WWI (with direct and generous support
from their allies, the victors of WWI including Czarist Russia which
also created the mess in the Middle East, including the fake state of
Iraq, millions of people are suffering from now) to ethnically cleanse
the area for an Armenian homeland which never existed.

The rest of the Ottoman Armenian population either very blindly
followed their terrorist leaders or remained totally complacent. That
is why another thug of Armenian anti-Turkish Hatred Inc says the
following:

"No sir, you will not find Armenians who will express disapproval or
distress for the assassination of Turkish governmental officials. It is
unfortunate that the attitude of the Turkish government vis-a-vis
Armenian demands dictates that more people have to die in pursuit of
justice. . It is not uncommon to find those within the Armenian
diaspora who actually applaud these violent actions. "

David Davidian <***@urartu.SDPA.org> | The life of a people is a sea,
and
S.D.P.A. Center for Regional Studies | those that look at it from the
shore
P.O. Box 2761, Cambridge, MA 02238 | cannot know its depths.
->> Boston'dan Van'i istiyoruz <<- | -Armenian
proverb

Armenian Violence and Massacre in the Caucasus and Anatolia Based on
Archives Ankara-1995

One of the most excellent administration systems recognized by the
history of humankind has been established by the Ottoman State. Since
many centuries, the Ottoman State has administered the minorities under
its rule having different languages, religions and races in harmony and
security and in accordance with its policy it has not assimilated
these people.

There was no problem with the non-Muslims in the period when the
Ottoman State was strong, but when the state lost strength the Armenian
question occurred due to the Great Powers who directed the minorities
in accordance with their own religious, political and economic
interests.

This policy of the European States has taken its place in political
terminology as the "Oriental Question". It is quite natural that the
Armenians played their role given by the European states. As it is
known, the "Oriental Question" is the other name of the division of
Ottoman territories with agreements, which the European states signed
among them, with the aim to protect the rights of Christian Ottoman
citizens. The demands of the European imperialistic states for
privileges and independence on behalf of Christian minorities in the
Ottoman State has become a "have to" policy. This policy has first been
applied to the Greeks as a result of the interference of Russia,
France and England to the Mora Rebellion which started in 1821, the
Ottoman State had to give independence to Greece with the Edirne
Agreement signed in 1829. The same situation has occurred after the
Ottoman-Russo War in 1877-1878. With the Ye?ilköy and Berlin
agreements signed after this war, the Christian people living in the
Balkans gained their independence with the states called Romania,
Serbia and Montenegro. Only Bulgaria was left within the Ottoman State
with very weak ties.

When imperialistic Europe was not satisfied with this, they aimed at
the Christians in Anatolia. These were the Armenians. In the Ye?ilköy
and Berlin Agreements references were made relating to reforms. The
"Armenian question" was for the first time took place both in
international agreements relating to this subject and within the
"Oriental Question". Russia, and later England, were the countries
which showed the most interest in this subject. Under the influence of
these states the Armenians first caused rebellions which they later
turned to massacres by which they deliberately exterminated the
Muslim-Turkish people living in East Anatolia and Caucasia together
with their cultural and spiritual values. This work is an opportunity
for people under the influence of Armenian propaganda in Europe and
America to see the facts. These published records clearly reveal that
the Turks have not violated and massacred the Armenians, as the latter
claim, in contrary it shows how the Armenians exterminated the Turks.

I would like to thank the personnel of the Prime Ministry General
Directorate of the State Archives Directorate of Ottoman Archives who
have spent great effort in the preparation of this work.

I hope that this work will be helpful and useful to those interested.

A. Naci TUNCER
Prime Ministry Undersecretary

Armenian Violence and Massacre in the Caucasus and Anatolia Based on
Archives Ankara-1995

There should not be any doubt that the secret which enabled the Ottoman
State to dominate for many centuries and which distinguished this state
from the contemporary states lies in equally administering the Muslim
and non-Muslim peoples without regarding their traditions, customs and
beliefs.

Tolerance, which is an important factor in Turkish-Islam state
tradition, made the peoples in the Ottoman State live together in
peace, harmony and prosperity which has not been achieved by any state
throughout history. The Ottoman State has continued this for many
centuries without, according to their policy, using methods or ways of
indoctrination or in other words socialization, and without
assimilating the minorities as the big states did rightfully it has
engraved in history the "Ottoman centuries".

When examining the whole history of the Ottoman centuries one can
observe in every period the just, tender and tolerant administration of
the Ottomans.

The Turks have always been equal, fair, just and tender against the
peoples and minorities under their patronage have been protective and
have not been applying colonization policies.

Tolerance shown by the Turks during thousands of years to the other
religions and nationalities is a certain truth of history. The Ottomans
had in a way systematized this tolerance. Otherwise, the geography of
religions and languages of many countries would have undoubtedly a
quite different appearance.

In every period, wherever Turks have gone they have rescued people and
have provided justice, established civilizations and brought freedom.
The Turkish archives are the living evidence of this.

As it is known, the Jews were banished from Spain after 1492 and their
only solution was to take refuge in Ottoman territory. In 1572, the St.
Barthélemy massacre occurred in France. Until 1648 Europe turbulated
with religious wars. On the other hand, non-Muslims were living in
harmony and peace under the just Ottoman administration.

However, in the history of the Ottoman State there are many events of
ingratitude and betrayal of both the peoples under its administration
and the Western States which were provided political and economic
privileges.

The Armenians have also taken their place on this stage by betraying
the Ottoman State although they had lived in harmony and prosperity
under the just and tolerant Ottoman administration they were trapped
by the Western States and used by them as tools in breaking down
Ottoman territory.

There was no Armenian question before the Ottoman-Russo War. This
question started when Russia, after occupying some Turkish cities,
provoked the Armenians here for independence against Bâbiâli in
advantage of their own objectives. After the provision of statements in
the Ayastefanos and Berlin Agreements relating to reforms in places
where Armenians were living, the Armenian question started with the
interference of the big states in the internal affairs of the Ottoman
State on the basis of these statements.

In fact the Armenian question is part of the "Oriental Question". It
should be known that the reasons for the appearance of the Armenian
question are not based on the social, cultural, economical,
administrative and political status of the Armenians living on the
territory of the Ottoman State this question is based on an
international imperialistic strategy, a policy of power balances called
the "Oriental Question" created artificially.

The term "Oriental Question" that takes place in the terminology of
political history means the efforts of the Western States to break down
the Ottoman State. The "Oriental Question" means, in summary, for the
non-Muslims to break down the Ottoman State and to provide reforms on
their advantage and under this framework the provision of concessions
and privileges leading them to autonomy or independence. (1)

It should be known that the Armenian question, which has been created
artificially by the West with plans at the disadvantage of the Ottoman
State in a period when the political collapse of the Ottoman State
accelerated, was based on the economic, intellectual, political,
religious and cultural interests of Europe.

It would not be wrong to state that the Armenians sentenced the Turkish
state and the Turkish people with feelings of malice, hatred and
revenge and harmed the lives and properties of the Turks because they
were sacrificed to political plots prepared for Russian, English and
French interests in which the Armenians blindly believed.

The main reason for the emergence of the Armenian question is the
policy of Russia, England, France and America against the Ottoman State
and the Armenians. It will be appropriate to state the policies
followed by these states briefly.

The Effects of the Policy of Russia:

Russia, which had become an influential state in Europe during the
reign of Czar Petro I (1682-1725), has always strongly desired to get
hold of the Straits. Russia, which had also an excessive sympathy for
the Balkans and which wanted either to get hold of these countries or
to make them subject to its administration, established with this aim
its consulates in the Balkan countries to organize these countries
against the Ottoman State as a result of which they took up the role as
guardian of the Slavic-Orthodox union and its people. Russia, which did
not neglect to take advantage of the confusion and instability in the
region to apply its policy, provided the occurrence of the Greek
Rebellion in 1827 and the Bosnia-Herzegovinan, Bulgarian and Serbian
rebellions in 1875-1876 and provoked their expansion. This policy of
Russia which also aimed to obtain territory from the Ottoman State on
behalf of the provoked regions has not always been successful because
from time to time it came in question with the interests of England and
France. Here upon, Russia applied its policy to share the cake with the
other states before acting against the Ottoman State.

Russia believed that by dividing Anatolian territory it would be able
to achieve its goal to dominate the Mediterranean and the Middle East
and to reach warm waters and for this purpose it tried to obtain the
Erzurum-Yskenderun Line where most Armenians were living. Thus the
contact of Russia with the Armenian churches in the Ottoman State and
its support to Armenian terrorism started.

Russia which tried to succeed its objectives regarding East Anatolia by
the use of the Armenians who started to work for the services of the
Czar and which used the Armenians on the front battle line in the war
with Persia, attacked the Ottoman State with the new power it gained
when East Armenia was appointed to Russia by the Türkmençay Agreement
of 1828 and when the Persian Armenians joined this union. When 40.000
Armenians who migrated to Russia with the Edirne Agreement of 1829
wanted to establish an autonomous Armenia this was being refused then
by Russia which had pretended to be the guardian of Armenians just in
order to realize their desire on Ottoman territory.

Thus the Armenians, who had lost their citizenship in the Ottoman
State, were often facing oppression and cruelty even for their most
natural rights in Czardom Russia and met their due punishment for their
betrayal.

The Effects of the Policy of England:

The reason for the interest of England in the Ottoman State and later
in the Armenians is closely related to the fact that Russia as a
powerful Black Sea state was constantly being moving to the South
threatening English interest.

England's support to the Ottoman State in order to avoid Russia's
development that threatened England's interests had continued from 1873
until the Ottoman-Russo war in 1877-1878.

Although England, which had separated Austria from the Russian alliance
during the Ottoman - Russo War between 1787-1792, started to oppress
Russia by having Prussia taking its side after the French Revolution,
it supported Russia during the wars between France and Russia.

Caning, the Prime Minister of England during that period, commented on
England's opposing attitude against the Ottoman State during the
rebellion of Greece as follows: "The aim of England's attitude is not
to agree with Russia it will be better that Greece, which definitely
will gain its independence, will be indebted to England which is a
friend state in the Mediterranean than being indebted to Russia".

England supported the Ottoman State against the rebellion of Kavalaly
Mehmed Ali Pasha, governor of Egypt in return, it had Sultan Mahmud II
sign the "English Trade Agreement" in 1838 that caused great wounds in
the politics and economy of the Ottoman State.

With this agreement the Ottoman State became an English open market
after which the Ottomans were not able to avoid the Greek and the
Armenians to gain power by taking advantage of this situation.

England refused the proposal of the Russian Czar Nikola II in 1853 to
share the Ottoman State and supported the Ottomans during the Crimea
War. However, Europe's changing political structure in the 1870's had
changed England too and after the Ayastefanos and the Berlin Agreements
were signed at the end of the Ottoman-Russo War between 1877 - 1878,
England ceased to defend the integrity of Ottoman territory and took up
the policy to break the Ottoman State down and to establish states on
this territory dependent on England.

An important reason for the change of England's policy relating to the
Ottoman State is that starting from 1880 the Armenian question gained
importance in Europe.

The fact, that the Catholic people in the Ottoman State were under the
protection of France and the Orthodox people were under the protection
of Russia, made England increase the number of Protestant Armenians by
having an article relating to freedom of conversion included in the
Reform Ferman. Thus by the policy of protecting the Protestants,
England provided the possibility to interfere in the internal affairs
of the Ottoman State and because the Protestantism policy was mainly
concerned with Armenian culture it has provoked the national feelings
of the Armenians.

The Armenian question can be accepted as having begun during the
Ottoman-Russo War between 1877-1878 when Russia occupied some cities in
Anatolia and provoked the Armenians living there against the Ottoman
State for independence.

England which understood that it could not oppose Russia's aggressive
behaviour against the Ottoman State and that it was unable to guard its
own interest accepted de facto the Armenian question. It immediately
took its first step after threatening the Ottoman government it took
Cyprus to use it as a base against Russia. Besides, England obtained a
concession from the Ottoman State to make reforms in favour of the
Christians living in the East Anatolian provinces as a result of which
the Armenian question has become in fact the English question.

Before the Ottoman-Russo War, the Armenians had no intention to
separate from the Ottoman State and to establish an individual state
in spite of this the Russians had included the Armenian question in the
Ayastefanos Agreement. England, on the other hand, had included the
Armenian question in the Cyprus Agreement without finding it necessary
to ask the Armenians. England supported the independence of Armenia
because it thought that this would cause Russia difficulty and it would
avoid the Ottoman State to develop.

The Effects of the Policy of France:

The privilege of capitulation given to France in 1535 as a concession
and favour by Sultan Süleyman the Magnificent started the first
serious and friendly relationship between the two countries. This
commercial and political relationship continued extensively with the
capitulation of 1740. However, during the Second Besiege of Vienna in
1683, France supported Austria and clearly showed its attitude. The
Egypt Cruise, where Napoleon Bonapart was defeated for the first time,
has been the continuity of this situation. But during the wars between
the Ottoman State and Russia, France tried to be a friend, nevertheless
when agreeing with Russia in 1807 they showed again an attitude not
suiting friendship.

France, which supported Kavalaly during the rebellion of Kavalaly
Mehmed Ali Pasha, acted in concordance with the Ottoman State during
the Crimea war.

France has not been influential at the Berlin Congress in spite of its
attendance because Germany had defeated France in 1870 and was deprived
of political manoeuvres and of influencing other states for a certain
period. However, with the declaration of the Republic, France gained
its previous role and started to support political struggles of various
groups and to be their centre for shelter. Meanwhile, they had taken up
the protection of the Catholics in the Ottoman State and played an
important role in the Holy Places Question which caused the Crimea war.

France which could not bear being defeated showed sympathy to Russia
who had a dispute with Germany at the Berlin Congress in 1878 and after
settling its disagreements with England, these three states spent
together great effort to break down the Ottoman State. France had a
quite active role in the plan to divide and break down the Ottoman
State.

Between 1830 and 1921 France tried to protect the stability in the
Middle East and the Mediterranean which had been put forward
artificially just as the Armenian question meanwhile France tried also
to increase its political influence with the occupation of Anatolian
territory. Especially after the Montreux Cease Fire was signed France
developed its relations with the Armenians during the occupation of
Anatolia French occupation forces initiated occupation of Turkish
territory with Armenian militants and organizations. Meanwhile, as it
is known, the French supported in a great extent the Armenians during
international negotiations.

As a result, the Ayastefanos Agreement, signed at the end of the
Ottoman-Russo war between 1877-1878 which can be considered as the
start of the Armenian question being a product of the policies followed
by Russia, England and France, did not provide the Armenians the
independence they wanted but they obtained the chance to be included in
an international agreement dating 3 March 1878.

England, which saw that with the Ayastefanos Agreement the interests
and role of Russia concerning the Ottoman State had increased, made a
secret agreement with Russia in London on 30 May 1878 and with the
approval of Austria it put on the agenda the Berlin Congress. Germany
has also been very influential in having the Berlin Congress held
between 13 June-13 July 1878 with the attendance of England, Russia,
France, Austria, Italy, Germany and the Ottoman State. Although the
Armenians hoped to obtain their rights relating to their independence,
their proposals submitted to the Congress have not been taken into
consideration and the Armenian question has been left to England. The
61st article of the Congress is directly related to the Armenians and
the 62nd is indirectly related to them as it provides some rights to
the Christians living under the administration of the Ottoman State
since the Armenians are Christians, this article is for their concern,
too.

One of the main methods preferred by the Western states to interfere
with the internal affairs of the Ottoman State, to maintain their
interests here and to provide mutually their stability, has been the
reform activities which they demanded on behalf of the Christians under
the Ottoman administration.

The behaviour of the Armenians for their independence can be examined
in two phases. In the first phase, they started to disturb the peace
and security in the region they lived and demanded from the Ottoman
State and the Great Powers to provide and maintain the security of
their lives and properties. With these demands the Ottoman State fell
in a difficult position, moreover it established the necessary basis
for interference in the internal affairs of the Ottoman State. During
this phase, which can also be identified as the preparation phase for
independence, there have sometimes occurred events which have caused
malice and enmity among the people who used to live side to side in
peace since many centuries. For example, Armenians dressed like Muslims
attacked schools, churches, and their own targets by which they
collapsed the bridges between the two sides.

During the second phase of the Armenian independence movement there
occur local events based on individual activities by parties and
societies striving for independence which were located in Turkey and
abroad. The Kara Haç Society established in Van in 1878, the societies
established during the 1880's in Armenia which was under Russian
administration, the Anavatan Müdafileri in 1881 in Erzurum, the
Armenakan Society in Van towards the end of 1885, the Ta?naksutyun
society in 1887 in Switzerland and other revolutionary societies
started their activities with this goal. They sent weapons and
munitions to the region where Armenians were the most crowded,
especially to the Eastern Anatolian region in order to, as they
claimed, secure the lives of the Armenians. Terroristic events started
to occur with the organization of the revolutionary societies in the
Ottoman State.

These events started to progress after the establishment of the
Anavatan Müdafileri Society in 1890 and the provocation in July of the
Armenian people by the Hynçak Party in Kumkapy. Following this event,
European states protected the people who were guilty in these events.
Thus, the Armenian revolutionists strongly thought that the raiding and
terroristic events were not punished. This is clearly observed towards
the end of 1890 after the assassination attempt to the governor of Van
and the events in Amasya, Diyarbakyr, Merzifon, Çorum, Yozgat and
Tokat. The Sasun rebellion provided the Armenian events to be carried
to international platforms. England, France and Russia started to force
the Ottoman State to make reforms. On 11 May 1895 they gave the Ottoman
State a diplomatic note. In summary the diplomatic note stated that the
administrative, judicial, military and financial authorities in the
provinces of Erzurum, Bitlis, Van, Sivas, Mamuretülaziz and Diyarbakyr
should be limited on the disadvantage of the Ottoman State and also
that Armenians should be given privileges. One could, of course, not
expect the Ottoman state to surrender to these oppressions. The
Armenians who were not satisfied with these results caused events in
1895 in Ystanbul, Divri?i, Trabzon, E?in, Develi, Akhisar, Erzincan,
Gümü?hane, Bitlis, Bayburt, Urfa, Erzurum, Diyarbekir, Siverek,
Malatya, Harput, Arapkir, Sivas, Merzifon, Mara?, Mu?, Kayseri, Yozgat
and Zeytun. Following these events, the Van rebellion, the second Sasun
rebellion in 1904, and in 1905 the assassination attempt against
Abdülhamid II occurred. These are the main headings of the Armenian
events.

This published work of four volumes entitled "Armenian Violence and
Massacre in the Caucasus and Anatolia Based on Archives" is the proof
of the directions the Armenian events have taken after 1905. The
records in these volumes reveal attempts of the Armenians to
exterminate the Turkish population in Anatolia and the Caucasus.
Whenever the Armenians had an opportunity they attacked villages where
they murdered all the people without regarding if they were men, women,
children, young or old. When taking a general look on all the records
in the four volumes, one can identify the acts of the Armenian
guerrilla bands after 1906 rather as genocide than cruelty and
violence.

The first volume of this work includes 256 records collected under 26
summary headings relating to the events between 1906-1918. These are
the years when genocide was the most intensive. As it is known, this
period is in concurrence with the period of the Trablusgarb, the Balkan
and the First World Wars. During this period, the Armenians first
collaborated with the Russians, who had occupied a considerable part of
East Anatolia, and carried out all kind of violence and genocide in the
regions under Russian occupation. For example, record 2 states that the
number of Muslims which have been subject to genocide in and around
Kars and Ardahan has been 30.000 record 21 states the cruelty and
violence of Armenian guerrilla landed by the Russian Navy record 4
states the genocide of Muslim people in Van carried out in cooperation
record 5 states clearly that Armenian guerrilla bands and Russians
raped Muslim people, burnt old people and children who were forced to
gather in houses, destroyed and despised mosques and tombs, cut the
bodies of murdered people into pieces, roasted these and had these
eaten by those who were still living. Record 3 states that the
dimensions of the violence and cruelty expanded and included also the
Jews, that Armenian guerrilla bands together with the Russians killed
all the people in some villages in the regions of Erzurum, Van, Narman,
Pasinler, Sitak, Bitlis and Mus, that all the virgins in the village
called Salimli were raped, that they had dogs eaten the bodies of the
death, that they roasted like a lamb a child after which they tied it
up with a bayonet on a post, that they roasted a 6 months old baby girl
after which they forced the mother to eat it, that they cut with a
dagger children hung on a hook while their mothers had to walk beneath
the cut bodies by which their hair were painted with blood, that they
threw children in a well and burnt them in heaps of dried dung, that
they cut women, bruised their heads with stones, and nailed them by
their hand on doors, that they cut the noses, ears and chins of
innocent people, and that they cut 300 people including Jews and piled
them up like a wall. Record 7 states that Armenian guerrilla bands
together with the Russians continued their violence and cruelty and
that the Armenians murdered Cossack cavalrymen who came form Bitlis and
Muslim people whether old or young, woman or child. It has been made
clear that they have murdered the Muslim men in the villages around the
small town called Dir in the province of Hakkari, that they cut with
daggers and swords children of not more than 3 years old into pieces as
big as one's hand from which they made shelters and that they raped
about three or four hundred Kurdish girls. Record 8 shows different
ways of violence and cruelty. It states that 15 Muslim girls and women
were selected from the village called A?tak of the district Re?adiye in
the province of Van. These were forced to entertain them by taking off
all their clothes they said to the girls and women " pray and let's
see how you do it" after which they tortured, raped and murdered them.
Record 9 states that Armenians and Russians cut the baby of a pregnant
woman in the neighbourhood Abbasa?a of Van, that they cut the male
organ of a boy of fifteen or sixteen years old after taking off all his
clothes, that women and girls were taken to the American organization
and were raped, that they took out the buried bodies from their graves,
that they digged tombs and filled these with mess. Record 13 states
that it has been observed that Armenian and Russian guerrilla bands
raped twenty three girls within two days in the village Arabköyü of
the town called Ele?kird, that they murdered more than 20 children as
if they were cutting lambs in the village Molla Kulaç in Hynys, that
two Russian and two Armenian soldiers brought with them two pregnant
women and bet whether the baby was a girl or a boy upon which they
cruelly cut the women's bellies where they found one baby boy and a
piece of flesh the sexuality of which could not be distinguished yet
upon which they started to quarrel. Record 12 states that "fourteen
thousand of the fifteen thousand soldiers" were killed in Beyazyd.
Record 19 again states that Armenians and Russians cruelly cut the
bellies of pregnant women and threw the babies into the air and held
bayonets beneath them, and that they raped young girls and women.
Record 20 and 26 states again the cruelties and violence. Record 23
states the cruelties and massacres of the Armenians applied to Muslims
under Russian occupation it states that especially Antranik together
with thousands of guerrilla band members violated in Gence, Erivan and
Ordubat, that Armenians killed thousands of Muslims in and around
?ahtahty, Zengezor, Nahcyvan, I?dyr, Serderabad, that Armenians
withdrawing from the Ottoman army cruelly killed babies in their
cradle, old and ill people in their bed and that they terribly
massacred people in Erzincan, Mamahatun, Erzurum, Kars and the villages
around.

The second volume of this work includes 209 records of violence,
cruelty and massacre collected under 38 summary headings relating to
the period between January 1919-August 1919. As it is known, preceding
this period the Ottoman State had signed the Montreux Agreement on 30
October 1918 during the First World War the Ottoman State had to
leave, according to the statements in this agreement, the previously
conquered territories reaching out as far as Baku. The violence and
cruelties of the Armenians were the most concentrated in the regions
which had to be left by the Ottoman State according to the statements
in the mentioned agreement as if the Armenians were racing to take
revenge from the Ottoman conquests. In this volume, record 1 states the
violence and cruelties applied to the Muslims by the Armenians turning
back when the Ottomans left I?dyr record 2 states the violence and
cruelties of the Armenians to Muslim people around Revan, ?uregil,
Zaru?at, A?baba, Çyldyr and Göle record 4 states the violence and
cruelties of the Armenians, who worked in French military units, to
people and soldiers in Adana and around and especially in Pozanty and
record 5 states that Armenians dressed like French soldiers killed the
telegram director in Zor. As these records show the violence, cruelties
and massacres are concentrated in Kars, Ardahan, Batum, Revan, Nahcivan
and around. Records in this volume show that the cruelties and violence
of the Armenians also occurred in Adana, Mara?, Antep and around. In
this region, which was appointed to France according to the statements
in the Montreux Agreement, the Armenians showed their various cruelties
and violence time to time in collaboration with the occupying French
soldiers.

The first volume of these two consists of three main chapters.

The first chapter is the introduction part which explains, in summary,
the Turkish-Armenian, the Armenian-Russian, the Armenian-French and the
Armenian-English relations and the events which formed the basis for
the genocide by the Armenians.

The second chapter consists of the transcriptions and the summaries of
the records. In order to provide foreign people understand the genocide
by the Armenians, the summaries have been translated into English. In
addition, the bibliography of sources used for the preparation of the
index and the introduction takes place in this chapter. In the second
chapter, the records are given a record number according to the
principle of chronological classification and a summary heading
including summary and transcription. The summary headings are printed
in italic to make it more remarkable. The record summaries are to be
found immediately beneath the summary headings effort has been shown
to reflect as much as possible the subject of the record and the
elements of place, persons and time. Under the summary, the date of the
record according to both the Christian and the Islamic calendar is
given.

In this chapter, the transcriptions are given under the summaries. The
records groups are arranged according to the development of events by
taking into consideration the historical developments. While doing
this, introductory records are given first. In the transcriptions,
letter and syllable droppings in the original text and the number one
representing thousand in the dates are given in square parentheses.

In the third chapter, there are the photocopies of the records. The
record numbers in this part and those in the second chapter are
identical. The record number and the summary headings are given
according to the same method.

Right under the photocopies of the records there are references which
may be, in a way, identified as the identity of the record. These
references show the fond and the file number of the record in the Prime
Ministry General Directorate of the State Archives Directorate of
Ottoman Archives. In the case of records consisting of more than one
page the reference is given at the last page.

The second volume consists of two chapters. In the first chapter there
are the summaries and transcriptions of the records and index. In the
second chapter there are the photocopies of the records.

The four volumes of this work will be continued with the third and
fourth volumes which will be presented as soon as possible to the
attention and use of circles of science.

The number of publications relating to the Armenians and Armenian
issues in the world libraries is very high. Especially in this century,
following the First and Second World War, authors who have written
books on behalf of the Armenians with the aim to establish an Armenian
country, emphasize the political interests of the countries they are a
native of. Thus, the so-called scientific works are one-sided, full of
political propaganda, ornamented with massacre stories, unrelated with
the truth, biased, written with Armenian fanaticism, and misleading the
world's public opinion.

In these so-called scientific works, there is enmity against Turkey and
the Turks. Books, articles, theses and papers claimed to be written
scientifically are far from being true and are including feelings of
Armenian hatred and revenge with this kind of publications the public
opinion of the world is wanted to be turned against Turkey and the
Turks and the influential public opinions of some countries are
imposed to believe in the existence of the Armenian question.

The works published until the present are in general one-sided and in
opposition of the Turks, because the social and political aspects of
the Turkish-Armenian relations are usually not put forward in the
Western countries on the basis of Turkish sources, especially
first-hand archival sources.

Meanwhile, it has become apparent that some records exist in the Public
Record Office which has not been used by the Armenian historians up to
now. These records show that the claims and propaganda relating to the
genocide applied to the Armenians by the Turkish Government during the
First World War are baseless and only a misleading campaign supported
with some false records.

As it is known, Ystanbul was occupied in 1918 by England and its
confederates. So the Ottoman State and its bureaucracy were completely
taken under control. During this occupation, the English have arrested
about 150 Turkish authorities, politicians and scholars and have
banished them to Malta. The English tried to accuse and sentence these
scholars and sought evidence about their roles in Armenian events.
Because the English were the occupying side they had the advantage to
use the Ottoman archives, all the papers of the state and all the means
for listening witnesses. However, in spite of all their efforts they
could not bring out any record or information accusing Turkish
authorities. They also carried out such researches in the other cities
they occupied, but were not able to reach a result as they desired.

Consequently, the English wanted support from the American government.
Since long there were American missionaries and consular officials in
the regions in which the events occurred. These people were following
and reporting all the events. However, American authorities replied to
English applications that there were no sufficient evidence and legal
records. They also permitted the English to examine their files. But
any accusing record or information about this subject could not be put
forward. These historical facts are shown in the archives of the
correspondence between the English Foreign Affairs and the
representative in America. (2)

Another very important fact about this subject occurred in the recent
years.

In 1920 Armenians printed a photograph and a text of a so-called coded
telegram in a book published in Paris by a person called Andonian. This
telegram says that Talât Pasha, Minister for Home Affairs of that
period, gave a direction to the Governor of Aleppo ordering the
annihilation of Armenians. This thesis has been misused against the
Turks in the world's public opinion for a long time. At that time the
Turkish Independence Struggle was continuing on intensively in
Anatolia, thus nobody spent effort to examine such publications and to
respond to them.

However, a work (3) published in 1983 has revealed that the above
mentioned so-called telegram has never existed and that the date,
number and signatures on it were counterfeit and that the world's
agenda has been deceived with false records for a long time.

Regarding the so-called Armenian question, it is definitely necessary
and obligatory to inform the people interested in this subject,
especially the world's public opinion about the truth of the Armenian
question and to reveal with all openness Armenian terror which has
lasted with hatred and insistence for years.

During all these years very few answers have been given to the various
propaganda against us, but on the other hand a couple of people,
so-called scholars having no morality of science are dealing with the
Turkish-Armenian relations during history only from one side and are
misusing this constantly at the disadvantage of Turks and are
increasing their activities each passing day and they continued to
carry a grudge. The silence of the Turkish people arising from the
dignity of just people has been interpreted as the silence of guilty
people.

It should be known that ignoring the cruelty to which the Turks have
been subject throughout history will kill the entity of right and
justice.

It has become a scientific and national obligation and a criteria of
morality for us to bring the groups and states conditioned with
Armenian propaganda and clamour face to face with the truth and for
this reason to reveal on the basis of archival records the inner
aspects of the disagreements between the Turks and the Armenians and
Armenian terrorism and cruelties which are intentionally being
continued for centuries.

Our religious belief, our historical honour and our nobility refrains
the Turkish people to have blood feuds, to murder and to take revenge
however revealing the truth is a national and human duty and
responsibility.

With the Treaty of Lausanne on 24 July 1923, Turkey accepted the status
of minorities and gave the Armenians all the individual rights and
freedom equal to the Turks and since that date there has not been any
problem with the Armenians living in Turkey. Armenians in Turkey, who
were not misled by externally commanded organizations and who did not
approve them, are now living in peace, welfare and religious freedom.

Our citizens of Armenian origin are under the high security of the
state and they are free to use all their legal rights. As it has been
in the past, they are the wealthy citizens of the country and are
occupied in every profession. The Armenian citizens are praying in
churches according to their own beliefs, are educated in their own
schools and language, are preparing publications in their own language,
and are continuing their social and cultural activities. To sum up,
Armenian citizens are equally benefiting from all the rights given to
the Turks.

The well-known and made-up Armenian claims are unfortunately brought
up, in accordonce with the conditions of that period, as material for
internal and external politics by states being a friend or an enemy of
Turkey time to time.

As it will be appreciated, true information about history depends on
first - hand sources or archival records. Without archives history
cannot be written and the real aspects of the events cannot be made
known.

It does not suit to the objectivity required by history and science to
write histories, to decide on a certain period and to evaluate a period
or events based on hypotheses without using and knowing archives.

The social and political aspects of Turkish-Armenian relations are in
the western countries not based on Turkish sources, especially on
first-hand archival sources thus the publications until the present
are in general one-sided and always opposing the Turks. Some
researchers of Armenian origin and so-called scholars supported by
Armenians have been given permission to carry out research in the
Turkish archives. As they could not find any documents confirming the
Armenian thesis in the Turkish archives, they intentionally claim that
the so-called existing documents were not given them. So they try to
gain supporters from the scientific circles and declare themselves as
if they are right with some provocative attitudes such as disseminating
these claims in the media close to them.

Armenian question, in the past, was an artificial event which
imperialistic powers and terror organizations, supported and encouraged
by these powers, tried to create in spite of our Armenian citizens.
But, today efforts are spent to put on the same play in more
inconsistent conditions. This question is stirred up continuously by
the powers wanting Turkey to demolish and to piece and hoping benefit
from Turkey's weakness.

Being parallel to the political conjuncture and to the situation of
Turkey's relations, this subject seems to take place in the agenda by
keeping its actuality.

It can never be valid to ignore this subject and not to respond to the
opposite activities, especially the intentional publications on this
subject.

The most sound and realistic way of withstanding against such kind of
destructive provocations and international intrigues is to bring out
the historical facts by basing upon the archival records, to show in
the light of archival records that the Armenians who showed their
cruelty are the real tyrants, and to give an end to the one-sided ideas
on this subject.

It should be known that this work prepared objectively on the basis of
records in the Prime Ministry Ottoman Archives does not carry any
negative intention or thought. The aim of publishing this work is to
have the world understand and evaluate this time from the Turkish
archival sources the origin of the Armenian question and terrorism, and
the basic aspects and powers behind this question.

I congratulate the personnel of the General Directorate of the State
Archives Directorate of Ottoman Archives who have spent effort to
prepare the archival records relating to the Armenian cruelties for
publication which will fill in a big gap in this field.

On this occasion, I would like to thank the Prime Ministry
Undersecretary Ali Naci TUNCER and the Deputy Undersecretary Muzaffer
TUTAR who supported and encouraged us in our activities.

We would also like to thank Mr. Mehmet YAZICI, Director of the Prime
Ministry Printing House with Circulating Capital and his colleagues who
all have expended their effort in printing this work.

We wish that this work will be helpful in revealing the historical
truth in the light of science and that it will be useful in the work of
those interested.

Ismet BINARK
General Director of the State Archives

Armenian Violence and Massacre in the Caucasus and Anatolia Based on
Archives Ankara-1995

A. Brief Outline Of Armenian History

The Armenian race and the geography of their territory are subject to
discussions. From the very beginning of their history, Armenians have
always been subject to the rule of other states and served these
states.

Having been ruled by Meds, Persians, Seleucids and Romans for centuries
in the history, Armenians lost their protectors against Sassanids when
the Roman Empire was divided by 386, a part of their territories was
left to the Roman Empire, while the other part, including Erivan, was
annexed by Sassanids.

Afterwards, the Church began to exert a great influence over Armenians.
When the rule of Arsakly dynasty was abolished by the pressure of the
feodality and the religous elite in 429, Armenians who had been
governed by the Sassanid governors, were totally submitted to Iranian
rule in a short period.

In the meantime Armenians were the cause of several wars between Iran
and Byzantium and were frequently subject to religious pressures. As a
result of the victories of Kadisiye (636) and Nihavend (640), the
Yslâmic armies drove out the Iranians and settled in the Armenian
territories. Unable to stop the Muslim tide, Armenians made an
agreement with the Arabs. In this period, Armenians were governed by
general governors. During the Abbasid period, Armenians stirred up
several rebellions.

Armenian Violence and Massacre in the Caucasus and Anatolia Based on
Archives Ankara-1995

B. Turco-Armenian Relations

The innate national characteristic of Turks, namely tolerant and just
treatment of other nations who were living within their states
regardless of their religon or sect, permitted to the minorities to
live freely. Armenians were the first Christians to understand this
tolerance in the philosophy of the Turks, who pursued the goal of
"global sovereignty". The Armenians, then a small princedom living in
Caucausus, were governed by Orthodox Byzantium who was forcing the
other nations under their rule to accept its own religion. They also
employed great pressure on Gregorian Armenians to accept Orthodoxy.
Bored under Byzantine pressure, Armenians prefered the rule of Muslim
Seljuk Turks as soon as they discovered this tolerance. TurcoArmenian
relations that started with the wars of Ca?ry Beg, became more constant
with the later periodical conquests. The victory of the Great Seljuk
Sultan Alparslan in 1071 against Byzantium was a turning point in the
turkification of Anatolia and therefore, Armenians were deeply affected
by these conquestial movements.

Armenians had never been subject to opression or pressure under the
rules of Great Seljuk State, Anatolian Seljuk State or other Anatolian
principalities such as Mengucogullary, Saltukogullary, Danismends and
Artukogullary. During these periods Armenians lived in peace under the
protection of customary law, a founding feature of Muslim Turkish
state.

Improving its political and military power in a short period, Ottoman
principality became a strong world power and annexed all Eastern
Anatolia in a peaceful way during the years 1515 and 1517. Thereby
Ottomans gained the absolute control of the Silk Road from Tebriz to
Halep and from Tebriz to Bursa. Despite this victory, the struggle
between Ottomans and Safevids lasted until the signing of Kasry ?irin
Agreement in 1639 during the reign of Murat IV.

Although several wars with Iran occured in between 1723-1727 and
1743-1746, the border laid by the Kasry ?irin remained unchanged.
During this period Crimean Khanate was legally binded to Ottoman Empire
and the Blacksea bank and Georgia were ruled by the Ottomans.

Although, several TurkishIranian wars occured on the territories where
Armenians inhabited, neither Ottoman, nor Iranian historical documents
mention Armenian names living in this region at that time.

The Situation of the Armenians Living under the Ottoman State

Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror, brought Hovakim, the Armenian
ecclesiastical leader, from Bursa to Istanbul and established an
Armenian Patriarchate near the Greek Patriarchate with his personal
initiative (1461).

Beforehand, just after the conquest of Istanbul he had appointed
Gennadius II. as the Orthodox Patriarch and by the establishment of the
Armenian Patriarchate the numbers of patriarchates located in Istanbul
arouse to two. The Patriarchate was the only authority over its own
community6 in the fields of individual and family law, as well as the
religious affairs and had also the right to imprison or send them to
exile, providing that it took the approval of the government. The
patriarch was appointed by the sultan and responsible only to the
government.

The members of all sects who believed that Christ had one nature tied
themselves to the Orthodox Patriarchate, whereas those who believed He
had two natures followed the Gregorian Armenian Patriarchate.

Although he was superior in terms of the religous hierarchy, the
Catholicos of Akdamar did not enjoy such legal authority that was
comparable to the authority of Patriarch of Istanbul.

Catholicos of Etchmiadzin, who remained under Iranian rule, was not
able to employ any influence over the Armenian people living in the
Ottoman State.

Following the establishment of the patriarchate and the settlement of a
large number of Armenians, Istanbul became their national and religious
center and by the early nineteenth century, it had hosted the largest
Armenian society over the world with approximately 150 000 Armenian
population. On the other hand, Armenians kept on their cultural
activities in their own language. They were quite contented with their
freedom of press under the Ottoman State.

Until Tanzimat Edict there was no notable change in the legal
situtation of the Armenians and they lived in peace, just like the
other communities within the Ottoman State. The first negative effect
of the Tanzimat Edict on the Ottoman administrative system was observed
in Lebanon.

The inhabitants of Lebanon composed of little Christian or Muslim sects
such as Druses, Nusairi or Ismaili and Christian communities such as
Catholic Marunis, Greek Melkits and Greek Catholics. The most
influential societies were Druses and Marunis. Before the Egypt Crisis,
Lebanon had been used to send 2650 kese to Treasury as annual tax,
whereas Ibrahim Pasha of Egypt increased this amount to 6550 kese
during the occupation. After the Crisis, the governor who was appointed
to Lebanon decreased the amount to 3500 kese. The inhabitants demanded
the amount to be decreased to its previous level, but this was not
possible as the Treasury was almost empty. As a result the Muslim
Druses revolted. On the other hand, when Governor Mehmed Selim Pasha
abolished the mukataa the farming out system* and brought a new system
in which the tax is collected in usual ways in accordance with the
Tanzimat Edict, the Christian tax farmers rebelled, as they believed
that their influence and authority would diminish. So, in 1840 both
Druses and Marunis revolted and as a result, these two societies also
began to fighting with each other.

This stiuation in Lebanon has prepared the ground for the intervention
of France that was regarded as the protector of Catholics, and Britain,
who did not want to leave France alone. The incidents of 1840s are
therefore notable, as it caused the first foreign intervention that
required reforms for religous minorities.

The second intervention came during 1860-1861, and as Britain supported
Muslim Druses, whereas France supported Catholic Marunis, the conflict
between the parties intensified. For the governors of Damascus and
Lebanon were not able control the situation, the rebellion spread to
Damascus and the question was elevated to international level. As a
result, the Minister of Foreign Affairs Fuad Pasha had to take the
control and employed administrative regulations, that was regarded by
Armenians as the first step of achieving their goals.14 In order to
explain what kind of an administrative style Armenians found eligible
for their interest, one must summarize the overall administrative
structure. The governor (mutassaryf ) of the sanjak, which would be
autonomous in administration, was to be appointed among Christians and
assigned the rank of vezir and his term would be of three years. The
sancak would be divided into six districts. Mutasarryf would govern
Mount Lebanon freely, after consulting with a council which would be
consisted of 6 Muslim and 6 Christian members. A number of volunteer
and paid soldiers, whose number was not exceeding 3000, would be
collected from Mount Lebanon and put under the order of the mutasarryf
and no Ottoman soldier would be able to enter the sancak without his
permission. The tax was also to be collected by the mutasarryf, who
would annually send 3500 kese to Istanbul. The Lebanon problem, which
at first glance is seen irrevalent to Armenian question, has been a
source of inspiration for Armenians.

Another development which directly affected the Armenians living in the
Ottoman State was the Te?kilaty Vilayat Reformu,* that was put into
effect on 7 November 1864. Accordingly, provinces, subprovinces and
districts would have a council, whose members were appointed by
election and these councils would become consultative bodies of
administrators. The members would be elected according to their
religions and sects and according to a certain rate. On the other hand,
the judges of the courts would be appointed among Christians and
Muslims in accordance with their corresponding population rate in the
districts. Once a year, the representatives of the districts would
gather and form the general council.

Tanzimat brought another novelty that directly concerned the Armenians
the division of Meclisi Vala into ?urayy Devlet (Council of State) and
Divany Ahkamy Adliye (Civil Court). ?urayy Devlet, would function as an
head office, and just like a legislative council would legislate,
allocate the budget and fulfil high administrative functions. Important
steps were taken in democratization by providing a contact between the
provincial councils and ?urayy Devlet and presenting the former's
decision to the approval of the later by representatives who came from
each province. Thereby, Armenians gained a voice in legislation in
accordance with their population rate.

Another body of Meclisi Vala was Divany Ahkamy Adliye, that consisted
of a Court of Appeal and a Court of Cassation and whose members were
appointed for life. Issues pertaining to civil law were left to canon
courts under the jurisdiction of Sheikhulislam, whereas criminal and
commercial cases were left to secular courts civil cases of Christians
were heard by their own religous leaders. Armenians were directly
effected by these reforms, which were in line with the overall
treatment that the Ottoman State provided for its nonmuslim subjects
since its establishment and in some respects extended their rights..

The customary and canonical law, that was carefully observed by the
Ottoman State since its establishment, did not permit to exert any
pressure (direct or indirect) on nonmuslim subjects. Islamic law had a
separate volume for nonmuslim subjects, where it fixed their rights and
duties. As a matter of fact, from the earliest Turkish State to the
Ottoman State one cannot find out any policy according to which the
minorities had been oppressed. But there are a lot of examples proving
the contrary. The Codes of Mehmed the Conqueror, Suleyman the
Magnificent and Murad III. involved clear articles about nonmuslim
subjects. So, did the Gülhane Hatty Hümayunu (Imperial Edict) and
Islahat Fermany (Royal Decree of Reforms). It is a widely accepted fact
that the State kept its promises given by the Tanzimat and Islahat
Fermany, according to which all subjects would be held equal in the law
regardless of their religion or sect, and none of them would be
discriminated and permitted to interfere the others.

When several members of the community changed their religion, either
for personal belief or for interest, some clashes erupted between the
Armenians. It is possible to bring evidences that the State behaved
completely impartially during these disputes and made efforts to help
their rapid settlement.

The rights that were given to the minorities by Mehmed the Conqueror
for the election and appointment of the clergy were not abandoned after
the Tanzimat, but carefully observed by the State. In the letters of
priveleges given to the patriarches, it was stated that the priveleges
and immunities given to the Church and Patriarch by the predecessors
were observed these are evidences that the Ottoman State gave
importance to the freedom of religion and justice, even during the
period of its decline. Besides, the State's caution in keeping a
nonpressure policy over converted subjects is remarkable.

Armenian Violence and Massacre in the Caucasus and Anatolia Based on
Archives Ankara-1995

C. The Beginning and The Development of Russian-Armenian Relations

The RussianArmenian relations began in the middle of the seventeenth
century. Understanding that Russia would strengthen and extend its
boundaries, Armenians presented Czar Alex a golden ornamented throne in
order to gain his friendship. When Peter I. succeeded to the throne,
the Armenians who wanted to get rid of the Iranian rule and establish
their own state, accelerated their activities to influence Peter in
order to benefit from his military power. Peter I. also thought to
benefit from Armenians in Eastern trade and after these contacts he
invited Armenians to settle on the Russian territory and announced that
he was ready to give all kind of privileges and guarranties, both
religious and wordly. During the reigns of Peter the Great and
Katerina, hundred thousands of artisans emigrated to Armenian Russia.

The relationship between Armenians and Russia improved in a short
period and during the first quarter of the eighteenth century it turned
out into a kind of alliance. When Peter I. advanced to Caucasus, the
Russian Government signed agreements of friendship and trade with
Christian Georgian and Armenian princedoms. According to these
agreements, Russia agreed to trade with Georgian and Armenian
communities and to educate the children of the elite of these two
communities.24

During the reign of Peter I., Armenians made efforts within the Russian
Government in order to establish an independent Armenia. Peter always
fostered their hopes, expressed interest in Eastern, Caucasus and
Armenian issues, but in fact he was not interested in Armenian
independence or in the establishment of an Armenian State. On the
contrary, he strived to occupy Armenia in order to remove all obstacles
from the Eastern road of Russia. Not only Peter, but also the other
Catholic governors wanted to use Armenians as a means to achieving
their own goals.

During the TurkishRussian war of 1768-1774, Katerina II. encouraged
Armenians to establish an "Ararat Kingdom" under Russian protection. As
a matter of fact, Katerina II. did not neglect Armenian factor during
her wars with Ottomans and incited them against Turks and Muslims.
Encoureged by the support an Armenian Bishop Osep Argotyan designed the
project of the "Ararat Kingdom" and submitted it to Petersburg this
project was approved by the Government of the Czarina , but never
realised.

Annexation of the Caucasus by Russia

Russia binded Georgia to herself in 1783 by the procedure of the
protectorate, and planned to establish a dependent state in the
Caucasus. Therefore, it accelerated its activities over the Armenians
who remained unaffected by Etchmiadzin and Catholic influence in the
Iranian territory, as well as the Georgians. The agreements made with
Georgian and Armenian communities were renewed and accordingly, Russia
promised these Christian princedoms to protect them against Iran and
Ottoman State. In 1801, Czar Alexander I. sent his soldiers to Tiflis
Khanates of Baku, Nahcyvan and Erivan were occupied. So, Russian
domination over the Armenians began and, understanding that Armenians
may be useful for their expansion goals Russia began to look at them in
this way.26

The OttomanRussian war continued between the years of 1806 and 1812 and
ended with the Bucharest Agreement. An article of Bucharest Agreement
stipulated the "forgiving of the subjects who were antagonistic against
the (Ottoman) State during the war". This article pointed at the
Armenians, who had cooperated with Russians during the war, as well as
the Orthodox people of Balkans with this article Russia wanted to
assert its status as the protector of Christian subjects".

Russian Control over the Armenians

In 1826, upon the news of death of Alexander I., the Prince of Iran
Abbas Myrza breached the Gulistan Agreement of 1813 and began to fight
against Russia. Armenians helped Russia, that was caught in a difficult
situation. The leader of Armenians, Catholicos Nerses Asdarakes ordered
Armenians to fight with Russians, established volunteer troops and
gathered forces in many places. With the volunteer cooperation and
contribution of Armenians, Russia recovered in a short period, and won
the war. Revan was submitted to Russia by Armenians. In accordance with
the Turkmencay Agreement of 18 February 1828, Iran was to leave the
Khanates of Erivan and Nahcyvan to Russia, in addition to the
territories it lost in 1813.

Thus, the Armenians of Southern Caucasus, who had been ruled by Iran,
came under the Russian rule and Catholicos of Etchmiadzin became
located within the Russian boundaries.28

Czar Nikolas I. declared that the territories gained by Turkmencay
Agreement were "Armenian Provinces". Afterwards, within a very short
period of 3,5 months 8000 families emigrated to Azeirbeijan of Russia.
This population was settled on the border, so that they would vitalize
the trade, play a positive role in terms of military strategy and
formed a cordon sanitaire.

During the TurkishRussian war that broke out in 1828, Russians attacked
Eastern Anatolia and captured Kars with the help of the Armenian people
of the region and advanced to Erzurum. Russian forces took some
important fortresses such as Kars, Ahyska, Beyazid and Erzurum in this
achievement the Armenians played an important role by giving
information on the location and movement of the Turkish troops. The war
ended with the Adrinople Agreement of September 14th, 1829 and the
Ottoman State restored some of its territories. However, Russia gained
several strategic places in the Caucasus and the islands in the mouth
of the Danube. Thus, Russia further progressed southwards from the east
and west of the Blacksea. With this agreement Ottoman State lost
contact with the Caucasus which was entirely surrended to Russia.

Affected by the provocations, Armenians made demonstrations in favour
of the Russians during their progression towards Erzurum, and after the
peace approximately 100 000 of them immigrated to Erivan, Ahykelek and
Ahyska of Russia from Erzurum and Eleskirt.31

Armenians hoped that the Czar would declare the Khanates of Erivan and
Nahcyvan as Armenian land and when the people of the region accepted
Russian identity this land would become independent. Thus, the Czar
would adopt the title of "King of Armenia", just as he adopted the
title "King of Poland". But these hopes did not last. Russian
interference was placed in a systematic and strong way. Taking over
their ecclesiastical centre Etchmiadzin, Russians limited the authority
of Armenian Catholicos and took the control of their legal system in
religious and cultural issues. In 1836, during the reign of Catholicos
Ohannes a code was put into effect, under the title of Pologenia. In
accordance with this Code, Russia recognized the Catholicos of
Etchmiadzin as the Catholicos of all Armenians and accepted his
election by the Church of Etchmiadzin, where other Armenian people
would send representatives. But this election was to be approved by the
Czar. So, Russia began to interfere in the religous life of Armenians,
too.

Russian Position about Armenian Question after the Treaty of Berlin

During the RussianOttoman war of 187778, Russian troops got in touch
with the Armenians of Eastern Anatolia, that they partially occupied.
The Russian army included many soldiers and officers of Armenian
origin. The commander of a large part of Russian forces, General Loris
Melikof, was also of Armenian origin. During the occupation, Russia
began to provoke the Armenians in the region to revolt against Ottoman
State to achieve its own goals over the Eastern Anatolia. During this
period, the Ottoman Armenians and the Armenians in the Russian forces
jointly organized actions against the Turks of the region. For this
reason, many Armenians had to leave Anatolia with the Russian forces
after the war.

Having cooperated with the Russian troops in the Eastern front,
Armenian Patriarchate Nerses also visited the Grand Duke Nicholas in
his headquarter at San Stefano and asked him to put several articles in
favour of Armenians in the forthcoming agreement. In fact, Russians had
the same goal in mind. Thus, an article about Armenians was included in
the Treaty of San Stefano. So, the Armenian Question emerged
officially, on 3 March 1878, because of Russian provocation of the
Armenians against the Ottoman State and insistance on including a
relevant article in the agreement.33

This development did not only strengthen the Russian influence over
Eastern Anatolia, but also constituted a step towards the fulfillment
of Russian plans which aimed to reach on the one hand to Persian Gulf
across Tigris and Euphrates, and on the other hand to Mediterranean
over Yskenderun (Formerly Alexandretta). Russia aimed at balkanizing
Eastern Anatolia and if it could fulfill these goals, it would have
enjoyed a great influence over the Ottoman State.

This situation worried Britain, who thought that her interests were in
danger. Thus, in order to prevent the escalation of the danger, British
Government forced Ottoman State to promise the reforms in Eastern
Anatolia and to permit her settlement in Cyprus. On the other hand, she
became an intervening party to the Armenian Question at the Congress of
Berlin. By the Article 61 of the Treaty of Berlin, the big powers
persuaded the Ottoman State to introduce reforms in the provinces
inhabited by the Armenians and undertook the control of these reforms.
Thereby, Armenian Question was elevated to international level, where
not only Russia, but also the other states had a say.

After the conclusion of the Treaty of Berlin, Russia continued to
provoke the Ottoman Armenians, but did not want their independence,
considering that this might soon encourage their own Armenian
population to make similar demands.

The situation of the Caucasus Armenians, whose national aspirations
were fostered by the policy of Czar Alexander II., began to change
after 1881. At that date, Alexander II. was killed and his son
Alexander III succeeded him. This development caused important changes
in domestic and foreign policies of Russia. From this date onwards,
Russia adopted a negative attitude towards all kinds of independence
movements outside of its borders. Inside its borders, it pursued a
policy of Russification and employed great pressure on the Caucasus
Armenians by crashing their national feelings, taking the control of
their churches, and closing their schools.

Alexander III. put an end to the traditional Russian policy of
protecting the Eastern Christians. In order to expel Britain from the
Near East and to provide their own security, he thought that it was
necessary to agree with the Turks. One of the conditions to such an
agreement was turning away from the Armenians and resisting
provocations against Turks.

Disturbed by domestic developments, Russia adopted a new policy which
foresaw no chance of recovery to its own Armenians, but stipulated the
provocation of the Ottoman Armenians. So, Russians planned that the
Ottoman State, already overwhelmed with problems, would weaken and the
autonomous administration, which aimed at by Armenians, would be
established only under the protection of Russia, not that of Britain.

In addition to these developments, during this period Russia began to
get involved in the Far Eastern affairs instead of the Near Eastern
ones. The eastern and middle part of Asia was full of wealth. It was
easier to strengthen in the Far East than it was in the Near East. It
was possible to obtain some parts of the countries, such as China which
lacked notable military force.

Britain found this new Russian policy more dangerous for herself than
the previous one, and encouraged Russia to turn to its old goals which
aimed at capturing the Straits. As a matter of fact, Russia might
threaten her interests in India and China, and Britain was reluctant to
fight against Russia under bad conditions and without any allies.

The new Russian policy gave a brief respite to Ottoman State.
Interested in the Far Eastern affairs, Russia was against the emergence
of any problem in the Near East that would occuppy her.

During 1894-1895 Britain attempted to pull Russia into the Near Eastern
affairs in order to take it away from the Far East36 and especially,
tried to take Russia and France in her side about the reforms that
would be introduced in Eastern Anatolia. The Reform Bill, which was
jointly prepared by these three states was rejected by the Ottoman
State. The aim of Russia in signing this Bill, was not to be seen in
the Russian and European public opinion at the behind of Britain .

Russia clearly expressed Britain its attitude about Armenian reforms.
When Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Lobanoff told British
Ambassador in Petersburg that "they never thought of the reform bill as
an ultimatum and they would not approve the use of a menacing language
against the counter offers of Ottoman Government", he was implying that
Russia would not accept the use of force in order to establish a region
which would serve as the nucleus of an independent Armenia in Asia
Minor, the ultimate aim of the Armenian committees.

Russia understood that the policy it had carried until then, was to the
benefit of Western countries, especially Britain, not to hers. So, it
was not deceived by the plans which aimed to set an obstacle to her
extention to the Middle East. The reality that Bulgaria turned away
from Russia and came under the protection of Britain, although it was
itself who gave support to its autonomy, alarmed Russia to act with
caution.

This Russian policy lasted until its defeat in Japan, in 1905, and then
it began to involve itself in the European affairs. Russia tried to
develop its relations with Armenians again it abolished the previous
decisions, restored the confiscated assets to the churches and reopened
the schools in order to appease the Armenians and use them in the Near
Eastern policy.

Armenian Violence and Massacre in the Caucasus and Anatolia Based on
Archives Ankara-1995

D. The Relations Between the Ottoman State and Britain

The British interest in Ottoman Armenians began with Kucuk Kaynarca
Agreement of 1774.

When the RussianOttoman war of 1787 broke out, William Pitt, the head
of the British Government realised for the first time that Russia could
become a threat against Britain, if she progressed in the South and
became a strong Blacksea State. So, she found it necessary to support
the Ottoman State against Russia. This policy, commenced by Pitt in
1783, continued unchanged for a century until Gladstone became Prime
Minister. Pitt successfully set Austria apart from Russian alliance
during RussianOttoman war of 1787-1792 after the French Revolution he
also took Prussia on his side and exerted great pressure on Russia to
end the war and to give Odessa back. He even dared to make war in order
to achieve this. Although this was not materialised because of the
disagreements within the government, Russia had to put an end to the
war.

Despite her policy, because of this competition Britain had to support
Russia during the RussoFrench war of 1807 in order not to remain alone
against France and she even brought its navy into Marmara. But when
Russia and France made an agreement in Tilsit in 1807, the friendship
between the Ottoman State and Britain began to flourish again. During
the Congress of Vienna in 1812, Britain tried to take the Ottoman
borders under the guarrantee of the Congress, although he was supported
by the Chancelier of Australia Metternich, who began to worry about the
emerging Russian threat, Czar Alexander rejected the offer.

During the Greek Revolt, Britain sided with the Greeks. However, this
attitude of Prime Minister canning must not be regarded as an indicator
of an alliance with Russia. It is believed that Canning thought that
Greece would ultimately gain its independence, and if it became
indebted for it to Britain instead of Russia, Britain would gain
another friend in the Mediterranean.

Britain remained as a spectator during the RussoOttoman war of
1828-1830 that started during the Revolt, but when Russia took the
actual control of Walachia and Moldavia, both Britain and Austria were
seriously worried. Russian settlement in the Caucasus accelerated
British suspicions, as it constituted a step on the way to India.

For this reason Britain refused to divide the Ottoman State, when
Russian Czar Nikolas II. told British Ambassador: "We hold a number of
sick men in our arms, I sincerely say that if this sick man is dead
before the conclusion of the necessary arrangements, it would be a
disaster." Britain also sided with the Ottoman State during the Crimean
War. It is known that Russia offered Crete and Egypt to Britain, and
wanted WalachiaMoldavia, Serbia and Bulgaria for itself.

Defeated in the Crimean War, Russia had to turn to the East, to Asia,
and completing the occupation of Siberia by capturing Vladivostok it
began to occupy Turkistan. Naturally, these Russian conquests in Asia,
especially the occupation of Turkistan, posed a threat against British
interests in India.

The 1870's were the years when Germany and Italy completed their
national unitification in Europe and when Russia escalated its
PanSlavism policy, that it had commenced after the occupation of Poland
in 1863.

The Ottoman State fought alone in the RussoOttoman War of 187778 and at
the end of the war signed the Treaty of San Stefano whose provisions
were very heavy. Both Austria and Britain rejected the Treaty
vigorously. When Bismark joined them, the Congress of Berlin was
gathered and Treaty of Berlin was signed, whereby most Russian gains
were taken back.

The British policy has changed considerably after the Congress of
Berlin. Gladstone, who was elected as the Prime Minister for the second
time in 1880, changed the policy that was taught by Pitt and kept
untouched for a century he abolished the policy of protecting
territorial integrity of the Ottoman State. In this political change,
religious factors as well as Gladstone's conformism and antagonism
against Islam played an important role.

After the Congress of Berlin, Russia turned to the Far East again and
commenced a friendship policy against Ottoman Empire, while she began
to compete with Britain again in Asia. But this policy did not last,
either. When Russia was defeated in Japan in 1905, she and Britain
agreed on their respectieve areas of influence in Asia, in 1907. From
this date on, Britain began to make plans with France and Russia for
the partition of the Ottoman State these plans were realised during
World War I.

Armenian Violence and Massacre in the Caucasus and Anatolia Based on
Archives Ankara-1995

E. The Emergence of the Armenian Question Within the Ottoman State

During the early nineteenth century, partially due to the provocations
of Western missionary movements, a cultural revival arose among the
Armenians, especially within the young Catholic and Protestant
communities. They flourished their own cultural centers, revived the
classical Armenian literature, published the Holy Book in their daily
language instead of church language and created a new literature
language comprehensible by the people. As a reaction Gregorians, who
were in a democratisation process under the pressure of the government,
also entered in a period of cultural awakening secular education began
in the millet schools by the demand of the people. Wealthy Armenians
sent their children to France to be educated and they were deeply
influenced by French culture. When they returned home, they did not
only demand radical reforms, but also secularism and autonomy. During
1860's some of these Armenian nationalists joined the New Ottomans and
made efforts in order to establish a representative government both in
their own community and in the Ottoman community. A minority group
claiming independence was opposed by Gregorians and wealthy officers
and merchants, who had prospered under the Ottoman rule. Therefore
those who claimed independence would have influenced only
intellectuals.

The international crisis, that ended with the Congress of Berlin,
changed the opinions of the Armenian people. The independence of
Bulgaria and Serbia encouraged many Armenians to adopt the same goal.
The Russian occupation of Eastern Anatolia in 1877 was realised under
the leadership of Armenian officers and governors that were in the
service of Czar who captured the Caucasus in the early century. They
asked the help of their brethrens living in the Ottoman State against
the Sultan. Although most Ottoman Armenians remained loyal to the
Sultan, the activities of those who did not, created a sense of
distrust. Patriarch Nerses' search for European support at Berlin and
San Stefano for the autonomy of East Anatolian Armenians and Russians
efforts to foster the Armenian nationalism in order to destroy the
Ottoman State caused the escalation of the Armenian Question.

When European powers neglected the claims of Armenians for autonomy and
even independence, Armenians recoursed to violence instead of
persuasion. Revolutionary Armenian committees were established in major
European cities and among rich Armenians of Istanbul, Trabzon, Erzurum,
Van and Russia. They sent their newspapers and brochures to the Ottoman
territory by foreign postal services. The most proviolence societies
dispatched weapons and arsenals from Batum to Rize. Armenians of Tebriz
dispatched agents from OttomanRussia border in order to horrify the
Muslim peasants. Unlike Serbs and Bulgarians, Armenians were not in
majority in any region within the Ottoman State, therefore their claims
remained too weak. In addition to this, Czar Alexander ceased to
support revolutionary Armenians, as he understood that his recourse to
radical doctrins in order to destroy Ottoman State might evoke
rebellions among his own subjects.

Confronting with such difficulties, Armenian nationalists aggravated
their violence and recoursed to terrorism even against their rich
brethrens in order to get their support. Their goal was to provoke
Muslim counteraction and thereby procure British and Russian
intervention into Ottoman affairs. Another goal of the Armenian
societies was to break the trust of Armenian bureaucrats in Sultan.
Revolutionary Armenians established guerilla bands, assassinated
Ottoman judges, mail carriers and tax collectors, attacked Muslim
villages and massacrated all inhabitants. By threatening the Armenian
peasants and merchants by death, the terrorists obtained their
protection and food.

When Revolutionary Armenians found that they were not successful as
much as they aimed within the Ottoman boundaries, they extended the
area of revolutionary movements to the outside of the Ottoman borders.
Two groups dominated the movement: the Hintchak (Bell) Society40 that
was founded by Armenian students in France and Switzerland in 1887 and
Armenian Revolutionary Federation41 (Dashnaks or Dashnaksutiun) which
was established as a part of Czar's policy of uniting all Armenian
nationalists in order to destroy radicalism within the Empire. Their
programmes included establishment of activity groups that would enter
to the Ottoman territories, attacks to Armenians as well as to officers
and provocations to massacres. Thereby, they planned, that foreign
powers would intervene and so the nationalists would be able to
establish an independent and socialist Armenian Republic.42 And they
planned to realise this in six provinces of Eastern Anatolia, where all
Muslim people would be driven away or killed. Dashnaks did not resort
to terror until 1895, although they founded several centers in
Istanbul, Trabzon and Van. On the other hand, Hynchak was more
successful within and outside of the Ottoman State and founded several
centers in Erzurum, Harput, Izmit, Halep and Geneva. They also
cooperated with other nationalist groups, who were active against
Ottomans, especially in Macedonia, Crete and Albania.

They sent secessionist publishments to the Empire by foreign postal
services, attacked public places with bombs, and killed officers at
their tables and mail carriers on the roads. Despite of the
governmental efforts spend to maintain the order, Hynchaks achieved
their goals agitations arouse. Abdulhamit II. founded a local Gendarme
organization, Hamidiye, in order to support the army against the
terrorist movements in the East and reestablish the peace.43

Armenian terrorism lasted three years (18901893): sometimes the
Government had to act very severely in order to keep the peace. But
Hynchaks did not meet any counteraction that will enable them to defend
their case in Europe. Therefore they organized a large operation in
Sasun, the southwest of Mu?, where the highest Armenian population was
living.44 Here, the bandits had been disturbing the farmers. When the
local governor attempted to collect the previous tax loans, Hynchaks
persuaded the peasants to confront the tax collectors with weapons.
Then the army intervened to maintain the security while they were
running to the hills rebellions burned the Muslim villages on their
way.

Upon these events, a network of revolutionary propaganda was
operationalized, as it had been before, in order to develop the
reaction of European public opinion. The realities and provocations
were forgotten again the Ottoman Government was accused of killing
20000 Armenian peasants and destroying 25 villages in the region.
Although a joint commission, consisting of Ottomans and foreigners,
exposed that the claim was exaggerated, European public opinion, that
was carefully followed by the politicians, was ready to believe in all
kind of bad claims about Muslims. Abdulhamid II. promised again to make
reforms in the East, that he was already making, in order to appease
Europe and to convince the politicians to something that they had
already known then European states abandoned the idea of intervention.

Disappointed by the reaction of the European states, Hynchaks planned
to provoke a clash in Istanbul which will be done in public. On
September 30th 1895, a demonstration was organized in order to protest
against the report of the commission. They first marched to the
embassies and then to the Sublime Porte. The masses of the capital city
were agitated by this event. When Abdulhamit II. attempted to send
police force in order to keep the peace, the foreign ambassadors
claimed that these measures aimed at supressing the Armenians. Nothing
was done until the clash spread to the quarters where Europeans were
living after this stage the ambassadors approved the imposition of
martial law and intervention of soldiers (September 9th, 1895).45 Such
incidents took place in Trabzon and other towns and cities, too.46 In
Europe, the outcries were heard again claiming that Muslims had killed
Christians and the government connived at that. But foreign powers did
not intervene British Cabinet was so divided that Britain was not able
to act and Russia was against any action that would submit the control
of Straits to Britain. Terrorists were dissapointed once again.

The winter of 18951896 passed in disorder troublesome as overall
security was weakened but nothing was done until the intervention of
the army in the spring. The Armenian terrorists, who were still waiting
for a foreign intervention, started their activities in Istanbul. On
August 14th, 1896, a group of Armenians occupied the Ottoman Bank in
Beyo?lu. They planted bombs into the building and took some of the
officials hostage. In order to draw the attention of Europe, they made
preparations for a longer occupation. After short period, a second
group entered to the Sublime Porte, wounded several officers and
threatened the Grand Vezir with guns. Revolutionaries were running in
the old streets of Istanbul, throwing bombs, and shooting haphazardly.
Some innocent people were wounded and killed.47 On July 21st, 1905, the
car of the Sultan, who went to Yyldyz Mosque for the Friday prayer, was
bombed more than twenty police were dead.48 Communiques were left to
the European embassies demanding the following: dispatch of a new
investigation committee to the Eastern provinces, appointment of
Christian governors and top officials to the region, appointment of
Christian police, gendarme and soldiers to the region instead of Muslim
ones, exoneration from all kind of taxes for five years and a 4/5
reduction in taxes at the end of this period, increase in the
governmental expenditures in the region for schools and other needs,
amnesty for the Armenians condemned or accused in the last events and
restitution of their confiscated properties. Abdulhamid II. rejected
these demands, since each of them was violating the national unity and
political independence. The occupation lasted one day and at the end of
this period the terrorists occupying the bank were captured and the
others were dismissed. After a short period, Sultan declared amnesty in
order to release the tension and prevent conflicts. Christian
administrators were appointed to the said provinces, although they were
in minority.

Meantime providing the support of Czar Nikolas II. (1894-1917), Lord
Salisbury forced the Sultan to accept the Armenian demands by sending
the British navy to Istanbul.49 However, Russia joined France which was
opposing any unilateral intervention to press the Sultan, since Russia
was worrying that this development might increase the British influence
in the region. Salisbury was not successful without foreign support
Armenian revolutionaries were divided among themselves and began to
fight with each other.

When the provocative activities were forgotten, Ottoman Armenians were
appointed to high offices, again. Armenian merchants and farmers turned
to their jobs. But the outcome of the events were very heavy. The
harmony that lasted for centuries came to an end. Rich merchants,
members of revolutionary committees and intellectuals left the Ottoman
State for Iran, Egypt, Europe and especially USA, when they found that
Armenian masses did not join their movements and not even support them
expect for the events of Adana of 27 may 190950 the Armenian Question
seemingly disappeared until it was warmed up again during the world war
I.

After it entered the World War I., the Ottoman State received the news
that the Armenian committees were cooperating with the enemy and
stirring up perpetual rebellions, but it did not take severe measures,
hoping that the events would be calmed down. But when Armenian
cruelties increased, the Minister of Interior Talat Pasha warned the
deputy of Erzurum Vartkes Efendi that severe measures would be taken if
Armenians continued to cooperate with the enemy. But Armenians
neglected this warning and continued to cooperate with the enemy and
even they increased their cruelties, as it is explained in this book.

Armenian Violence and Massacre in the Caucasus and Anatolia Based on
Archives Ankara-1995

Summaries of the documents concerning the burning of five villages in
Revan and the assasination of their inhabitants by the Armenians.

A writing stating that the names of twenty five villages attached to
the chief town of the sanjak of Revan burnt and their population
massacred by the Armenians have been communicated and that informations
about Nahcivan and other sub­prefectures which were also burnt, will
be forwarded upon receiving informations.

Hâriciye Nezâret­i Celîlesi Cânib­i Sâmîsine

Ma'rûz­i çâker­i kemîneleridir ki,

Revan sancaginin yalniz merkez kâ'im­i makâmligina tâbi' Ermeniler
tarafindan ihrâk bi'n­nâr ve ahâlîsinin kism­i a'zami katli'âm
edilen Islâm karyelerinin esâmîsi mu'ahharan Tiflis'e gelen
sâyân­i i'timâd bir zât tarafindan beyân olunmagla ber vech­i
zîr tahrîr olunur.

1­ Hores, 2­ Çehri, 3­ Cennetli, 4­ Tos, 5­ Betlice, 6­
Köyrali, 7­ Sarimsenk, 8­ Mangüs, 9­ Gözecik, 10­ Güllüce,
11­ Tutiya, 12­ Damagirmez, 13­Goh, 14­ Kemal, 15­ Kamerli, 16­
Bozavant, 17­ Toprakkala, 18­ Masûmlu, 19­ Ipekli, 20­ Ugrubegli,
21­ Çidemli, 22­ Novibayezid (Yenibayezid), 23­ Dokuzlu, 24­
Tutuplu, 25­ Hamamli.

Revan sancagi dâhilindeki Nahcivan vesâ'ir kâ'im­i makâmliklara
tâbi' ihrâk edilen Islâm karyeleri hakkinda ma'lûmât ahzedildikce
onlarin dahi arzina müsâra'at edilecegi ma'rûzdur. Ol bâbda ve her
hâlde emr ü fermân hazret­i men­lehü'l­emrindir.

Fî 14 Zi'l­hicce sene 1323 veFî 26 Kânûn­i Sânî sene 1321

Huzûr­i Sâmî­i Sadâret­penâhîye Tezkire­i Aliyye

Rusya'nin Revan sancaginin yalniz merkez kâ'im­i makâmligina tâbi'
olup Ermeniler tarafindan ihrâk ve ahâlîsinin kism­i a'zami
katli'âm edilen yirmi bes Islâm karyesinin esâmîsini ve mezkûr
sancagin sâ'ir kâ'im­i makâmliklarina tâbi' olan ve ihrâk edilen
diger Islâm karyeleri hakkinda istihsâl edilecek ma'lûmâtin dahi
bildirilecegini sâmil Tiflis Bassehbenderligi'nden ahzolunan 27
Kânûn­i Sânî sene [1]321 târîhli ve 16 numarali tahrîrâtin
sûreti leffen takdîm kilinmagla emr ü fermân.

Armenian Violence and Massacres in the Caucasus and Anatolia Based on
Archives Ankara-1995

Massacre of prisoners and Muslim population in the nighborhood of Kars
and Ardahan.

The number of Muslims committed to the guards of Armenians and
massacred by them after being inflicted physical pains upon and struck
by the butt of rifles reached 30.000 the Armenians serving in the
Ottoman army were deserting and deliberately surrendering to Russians
to disclose informations about the said army Armenians from the
Caucasus were first allowing to be taken prisoners by the Ottomans and
afterwards evading and delivering to the Russians the intelligence they
gathered.

Umûr­i Siyâsiyye Müdîriyet­i Umûmiyyesi

Hulâsa: Kafkasya'daki Islâmlara ve üserâya mezâlim

Dâhiliye Nezâret­i Celîlesine

Kars ve Ardahan havâlîsinde hükûmetin tahrîkiyle bi'l­hâssa
Ermeniler tarafindan itlâf edilen Müslüman erkeklerin adedi otuz
bine vardigi ve hânelerinin ihrâk edildigi ve karli ve buzlu daglara
dökülen bî­çâre kadin ve çocuklarin hâli dil­hirâs bulundugu
ve muhâfazasi Ermenilere verilen Osmanli üserâsinin bunlar
tarafindan envâ'­i sû­i mu'âmelâta ma'rûz kaldiklari ve tüfenk
dipçigiyle dögülerek itlâf edildikleri mevsûkân istihbâr
kilindigi ve Ruslarla temâsda bulunan asâkir­i Osmaniyye miyâninda
Rum ve Ermenilerin bulunmasini Kafkasya'daki hayir­hâhlarimizin
tenkîd etmekte olduklari ve rivâyet olunduguna göre bunlarin
bi'l­iltizâm esîr düsdüklerini ve Kafkasya Ermenilerinden bir
kisminin da amden bize esîr düserek ve sonra kaçarak ögrendiklerini
Ruslara söylediklerini binâ'en alâ­zâlik bu bâbda ihtiyât
edilmesi Tahran Sefâreti'nden bildirilmisdir. Harbiye Nezâret­i
Celîlesi'ne teblîg­i keyfiyyet olundu.

Üserâmiza hüsn­i mu'âmele edilmesi esbâbinin istihsâli zimninda
Italya Sefâreti nezdinde mükerreren tesebbüsât­i kaviyye icrâ
olunmus ve aksi takdîrde Rus esirlerine karsi tedâbir­i sedîde
ittihâz olunacagi bildirilmisdir, efendim.

BOA. HR. SYS. HU, kr. 110, dos. 12­1, nr. 2

Armenian Violence and Massacre in the Caucasus and Anatolia Based on
Archives Ankara-1995

Massacres of Muslims and Jews by Armenians and Russian bandits

While Russians together with Armenian bandits were forced back from
Hasankala to their own frontiers, they killed a part of the two
thousand muslim folk they took away and drove the remaining to an
unknown destination in the inland in Erzerum the Russians and the said
bandits executed nine people and sent the whole male population above
forteen years to no one knows destination in the sub-district of
Pekreç a self appointed Armenian tribunal sentenced some three-four
hundred people to the gallows and hanged them in the surroundings of
Askale, Tercan, Ilica, Tavuskerd and Arvin no one muslim was left
alive in Van Armenians after having killed about two hundred women and
children, massacred eight to ten thousand muslim people in the valley
of Mahfuran the population of the village Hot on the boundary of
Narman were entirely exterminated with machine-guns the majority of
immigrants living in Marhi Sufla of the subdistrict of Çukur attached
to Bitlis were put to the sword the entire villages of Cinis,
Pezantan, Ergani and Semerseyh with all of their inhabitants were burnt
up and due to the pretentious ignorance of the Kurdish Bedirhani Kamil
many villages' inhabitants settled in the vicinity of Bitlis perished
from starvation seriously ill children cared of in Bitlis Hospital
were savagely slain in the village of Balikan Corpses were thrown to
the dogs to feed on Çukur women and girls were raped and old people
burnt, small children were bayoneted and many other massacres
committed all these facts are stated in copies of dispatches sent by
the governorships of Erzurum, Bitlis and Mamuretülaziz.

Emniyyet­i Umûmiyye Müdîriyeti

Erzurum Vilâyeti'nden alinan 10 Mayis sene [1]332
târîhli telgrafnâmenin sûretidir.

C. [cevab] 8 Mayis sene [1]332. Ruslarin isgâl eyledikleri yerlerde
Islâm ahâlî hakkinda yapdiklari mezâlim büyük bir târîh teskîl
eder. Geçen sene Ruslarin Hasankala hattindan hudûd­i asliyyeye tard
ve teb'îdi üzerine Pasinler ahâlîsinden iki binden ziyâde
ahâlî­i Islâmiyyeyi berâber getirerek bir kismini itlâf, diger
kismini dâhile sevketmislerdir. O zaman Salimli karyesine giren bir
Ermeni çetesi, köyde ne kadar bâkir varsa irzlarina tasallut
etdikleri gibi kendilerine teslîm olmayan Resid Bey'in gelini[ni] katl
ve kâ'imvâlidesini cerheylemislerdir. Garb ordusu[nun], Yüzveren
köylerinde elli üç Islâm cenâzesi götürdügünü Köprü
köyünden 19 Kânûn­i Evvel sene [1]331 târîhinde arzetmis idim.
Bu sene Erzurumun sukûtundan sonra, Ruslarin isgâl etdikleri yerlerde
yapdiklari kitâl ve i'tisâf geçen seneden pek fazladir. Erzurum
sehrinde dokuz kisiyi i'dâm ve on dört yasina kadar bütün
nüfûs­i zükûru muhtelif ve mechûl istikâmetlere sevketmislerdir.
Erzurum'dan, Askala'dan ve ahîren Tercan'dan firâr edip gelebilen
Resid Bey ve rüfekâsinin verdikleri îzâhâta göre Kazak ve Ermeni
çetelerinden mürekkeb müfrezelerin Askala, Ilica, Tercan
kazâlarinda mal nâmina ne gördülerse kâmilen gasb ve gerilere
sevkeylemekde bulunduklari ve Hovik karyesiyle Pekeriç nâhiyesinde,
basda imâm oldugu hâlde yüzü mütecâviz Islâmi çoluk çocuklari
önünde katl ve pek çok muhadderât­i Islâmiyyeye tasallut
etdikleri ve Ruslarin pîsdâr kuvvetlerinin Ermeni bakâyâ
süvârîlerinden ibâret bulundugu anlasilmisdir. Ruslar Erzurum'da
bütün câmi'lerdeki halilari toplamis ve geriye sevketmisdir. Geçen
sene taht­i isgâlimizde iken terkolunan Tavuskerd ve Artvin
cihetlerinden kaçanlarin ifâdesine göre, Ruslar orada Islâm nâmina
birsey birakmamislardir. Pekeriç nâhiyesinde Ermenilerin teskîl ve
mahkeme tesmiye etdikleri hey'et­i zâlimenin verdigi karârla Tercan
ve civâr kurâsinda kalan ileri gelenlerden üç­dört yüz kisi
i'dâm edilmisdir. Bunlarin esâmîsini yakinda arzederim. Erzurum
vilâyetinde elli binden fazla mevâsî ve üç yüz bin koyun Ruslar
tarafindan alinmis ve ahâlî­i Islâmiyye yedinde çift hayvânâti
bile birakmamislardir. Ermenilerin en büyük mezâlimi Van'da cereyân
etmisdir. Vanin sukûtu ihtimâliyle on dört kayiga irkâben Tatvan
iskelesine sevkedilen bin iki yüz kadin ve çocukdan, ancak yedi
yüzü Bitlis'e vâsil olmus, muhâlefet­i havâdan dolayi Ercis
önüne düsen yedi kayikdan üçü Ermeniler tarafindan batirilmisdir.
Diger kayiklara karsi dört sâ'at devam eden yaylim atesi üzerine,
elliyi mütecâviz kadin ve çocuk sehîd olmus ve bu miyânda
Erzurumlu Ârif Efendi ile iki polis, bütün efrâd-i â'ileleriyle
sehîd düsmüslerdir. Van'dan Norduz tarîkiyla Bitlis'in Pervari
kazâsina kaçmak isteyen sekiz­on bin Müslüman, Mamhuran [Mahfuran]
deresinde kâmilen katli'âm edilmislerdir. Bunlar içerisinde
kurtulabilen Van Ma'ârif Müdîri Serif Bey bu ahvâle sâhiddir.
Adana Vâlîsi Cevdet Bey o zaman Halil Bey müfrezesiyle binlerce
kadin, çocuk cesedi görmüslerdir. Ordunun lutf­i hakla ahd­i
karîbde ilerilemesi üzerine Rus ve Ermenilerin yapdiklari fecî'alar
tamamen görülecek ve tafsîlâti arzedilecekdir.

Emniyyet­i Umûmiyye Müdîriyeti

Bitlis Vilâyeti'nden alinan 11 Mayis sene [1]332 târîhli
telgrafnâmenin sûretidir.

C. [cevab] 9 Mayis sene [1]331

1­ Hudûd köylerinde ta'arruz­i nâgehânî ile bidâyet­i harbde
kalan kirk bini mütecâviz ahâlî­i Islâmiyye cins ve sinn tefrîk
edilmeyerek nâmûslarina ta'arruz ile imhâ edildikleri, kaçabilen
pek az efrâdin ifâdeleriyle sâbitdir.

2­ Narman hudûdunda Rusya'nin Hot karyesi ahâlîsini mitralyözlerle
kâmilen imhâ edip bazi hânelerden tek tük kadin ve erkek olarak
kurtulanlar Erzincan'in Mitini karyesinde iskân edilmisler. Hot'a
civâr köylerin de ayni ta'arruza hedef olduklarini ifâde ediyorlar.
Ruslar Islâm tebe'alarina ta'arruzla harbe basliyorlar.

3­ Üç yüz otuz bir Subati'nin üçünde Bitlis'e mülhak Çukur
nâhiyesinin Morh­i Süflâ muhâcirîni Bitlis'e gelirken Kazak
askeri tarafindan muhâsara ile oraya civâr mahalde bulunan
askerlerimizin muvâcehesinde kilinçdan geçirilmislerdir ki, ancak
üç yüz kadin kurtulabilmislerdir.

[4]­ Van'in Satak köylerinde kalan Islâm ahâlînin bu son günlerde
katli'âm edildigi haber alinarak Ergani, Cinis karyelerinin
nüfûslariyla birlikde Ermeni ve Ruslar tarafindan ihrâk edildigi
Mekteb Müdîri Mutîullah Bey'in tahkîkâtiyla sâbit olmusdur.
Hosabli Bahri Bey nezdine o havâlî muhâcirîninden gönderilen
câsûslar da bu katli'âmi te'yîd etmislerdir. Arâzînin hâlî
kalmasindan ve erzâksizlikdan müte'essir olan Rus kumandani, Van'da
on iki Ermeniyi i'dâm ve istirâk eden Rus efrâdini tecziye ile
Hosâb'da kalan Kürdleri teskîne tevessül etmislerdir.

5­ Bitlis'de Kürdleri Ruslara isindirmak denâ'etinde kullanilan
Bedirhânî Kâmil'in Çukur'da, Gölbasi, Agaçur Kotni, Pan [Pav],
Çapkis, Meskan, Kakito, Müstak, Siz, Zurnaçur [Zirnaçur], Kisham,
Morh­i Ulyâ, Müsürüp [Müsürü], Bizatum [Bizatun], Tahtali­yi
Boy[r]an, Mus'un Martektuk [Mongok] ve civâr köylerinin ihrâk ve
ahâlîsinin Ermenilerle birlikde Ruslar tarafindan imhâsini
te'sîr­i nüfûzuna ve tesebbüsüne mâni' oldugu sarla[ta]nligiyla
Prens Sahofski ile Rus kumandanina bildirmesi üzerine ele geçen
efrâdi Bitlis'e karîb bir köyde ikâmet etdirmisler ise de açlikdan
kism­i küllîsi telef olup bir kaçi Mutiki [Mutki]'ye firârla
ahvâli söylemislerdir.

6­ Van'da pederi Yüzbasi Selim Efendi ile vâlide ve akrabâlarina
vukû' bulan ta'arruz­i senî'i, muhâcirîn arasinda aylarla
[aylarca] dolasmis, nihâyet Sirnak daglarinda yalniz gezmekde iken
getirilen jandarma kumandaninin besledigi sekiz yasindaki Mehmed,
vekâyî'­i fecî'anin sâhid­i ma'sûmudur.

7­ Uzak yakin hiç bir akâribi olmadigindan dolayi Bitlis
Dârü'l­eytâmi'na toplatilan bes yüze karîb etfâlin biraz müdrik
olanlari ne kadar vekâyi'in sâhididir. Bunlarin yetmisi Diyârbekir
Dârü'l­eytâmi'na gönderilmisdi. Agir hasta olan ma'sûmlarin
Bitlis Hastahânesi'nde vahsiyâne itlâf edildigi mervîdir.

[8]­ Muhâcirînin istîlâ edilen mahaller nüfûsunun üçde biri
râddesinde[n] az olmasi, târîhinde bir misli daha görülmemis
katli'âma ma'rûz olmalarindandir ki, arâzî­i müstevliyenin ._
atilacak derecede hâlî bulunmasiyla müsbitdir. Simdilik esîrlerin
istirâklerini ketm ile Ermenilerin cins ve sinn tefrîk etmeyerek
Kürdleri imhâ etdikleri Siird'de ifâde olunmusdur. Bu bâbda
kumandanlik nezdinde ifâdât­i mazbûtalari olacakdir.

[9]­ Kosor(?)'un Pezentan karyesi bir ferd kurtulmamak üzere
senâ'atden sonra ihrâk edilmislerdir. Bulanik'in Semerseyh karyesi
ahâlîsi senî' ef'âlden sonra katli'âm olunmuslardir. Çukur'un
Müsürü karyesi ahâlîsinden on bes nefer kesildikden sonra, parça
parça olunmuslardir. Baltan [Balekan] karyeli iki kisinin, Meskan
karyesi önünde sehîd edilerek na'slari kelblere yedirilmisdir.
Çukur'da esîr edilip sevkedilen yüz sekiz kisiden on üçü Bulanik
yolu üzerinde itlâf edilirken, digerleri muhâfizlara ta'arruzla
firâr etmislerse de Bitlis'de ve Surih karyesinde genç kadin ve
kizlara senâ'at icrâsiyla dâhile sevk, ihtiyarlar ihrâk, sibyân
süngü ile itlâf olunmuslardir.

10­ Van polis müdîr vekîli olup, Bitlis Serkomiseri Vefik
Efendi'nin sûret­i sehâdetini, Komiser Mehmed Efendi'nin
mecrûhiyetini, ma'sûmînin katlini Bitlis'den firârinda
Deliktas'daki ilticâgâhindan gördügünü yazan Siird Jandarma Tabur
Kumandani Muvaffak Beyin hâtirât­i mufassalasi pek fecî' vekâyî'i
hâkîdir ki, posta ile gönderilecekdir.

11­ Diyarbekir'deki Bitlis komiser ve polislerinin o sirada çikan
ahâlîyi bildiklerinden fecâ'ate dâ'ir meshûdât­i vâki'alarinin
tanzîm etdirilmesi menût­i re'y­i sâmîleridir.

Emniyyet­i Umûmiyye Müdîriyeti

Telegraph from Mamûretülazîz

C. [cevab] 8 Mayis sene [1]332. Ruslarin Ermeni çeteleriyle birlikde
Bitlis ve Mus ve civârinda istîlâ eyledikleri sâ'ir mahallerde
kadinlari ve çocuklari katletmek, irz ve nâmûsa tecâvüzde bulunmak
gibi birçok fecâyi' ve senâyi'de bulunduklari, zulm ve
tecâvüzlerinden kurtulup da buralara can atmis olan muhâcirînin
ifâde­i müdelleleleriyle mertebe­i sübûtdadir. Bu bâbda gerek
mülhakât ve gerek merkezce muhâcirlerden müfredâtiyla alinacak
ma'lûmâtin ehemmiyetleri telgrafla ve digerleri posta ile
arzolunacakdir.


People who bought this also bought

Pride and Prejudice

Outlander (Outlander, #1)

Devil in Winter (Wallflower.

Jane Eyre

Gone with the Wind

The Duke and I (Bridgertons.

Persuasion

Sense and Sensibility

A Kingdom of Dreams (Westmo.

It Happened One Autumn (Wal.

Matt
Cold War Conversations Podcast
Ray
Kevin Cole
Andrew
Sotiris Karaiskos
Steven Peterson
Jerome
/> Bfisher
Shoti

“MARCH OR DIE!” — THE LEGION IN MADAGASCAR II

Légionnaire, Madagascar, 1900 The soldier illustrated is serving with one of the companies which returned to Madagascar to put down prolonged rebellions at the turn of the century. In fact the only way in which he differs from those involved in the original invasion is in the gaiters the short, laced black leather model was first issued in 1900, prior to which the trousers were simply gathered at the ankle and tied, or allowed to fall free over the ankle-boot. The humidity and heat of this region led to a general adoption of shirt-sleeve order in the field, although the steel blue-grey capote is carried on the pack, as are pots and pans, spare boots and bivouac poles. The Negrier pouch is still worn, together with the two leather belt pouches for Lebel ammunition. The white shirt and trousers of coarse linen or canvas are standard Legion fatigue issue.

Other units had fared far worse—the 200th Infantry Regiment, formed of conscripts, most of whom had been drawn by lot from twelve designated metropolitan infantry regiments, had virtually ceased to exist. Of 800 Chasseurs à Pied recruited in part among French Alpine troops, only 350 were able to hold a rifle, barely. Yanked from their worksite and thrown into an attack against Hova positions on June 30, a great many men simply fell exhausted on the ground. “Half of the unit had to be evacuated,” wrote Reibell, “and the rest is anemic, spent, can never, with the exception of a few men, press on.” Engineering units, used to build, or rather attempt to build, bridges over the swamps had been destroyed—when Duchesne saw ten soldiers led by three officers marching back from a bridge worksite, he is alleged to have shouted, “That’s a lot of officers for so few men!” That, however, was what remained of a company of engineers. Only 20 of the original 150-man contingent of Chasseurs d’Afrique were able to mount a horse. The 13th Marine Infantry Regiment, 2,400 strong when they disembarked at Majunga in March, was reduced to 1,500 men.

As the Dahomey campaign had shown, by far the most resistant troops were the native formations. The ragged but resistant régiment colonial formed of Hausas and Malagasies and volunteers from the island of La Reunion counted only 600 casualties, most of them Réunionais. The prize for resistance, however, went to the Algerian tirailleurs, who had lost only 450 of their original 1,600 men.28 Reibell reported that the general staff was singing the praises of the Algerians. It was a pity that they had not included more of them in their plans. And despite the praise lavished upon the Algerians, Lentonnet complained that the Legion was repeatedly favored over his Algerians in the distribution of supplies, which “produces a bad impression in our ranks.”

However, if the Algerian tirailleurs were winning the praises of the staff, the Algerians recruited to work as mule and wagon drivers soon found themselves bearing the brunt of the blame for the poor conditions on the march. This was in part a logical extension of their association with the Lefèbvre wagons, which the men had come to see as the symbol of their misery and the cause of so many deaths among their comrades. Langlois’s legionnaires nicknamed them “La Fièvre” (fever) wagons, and greeted their arrival in camp with “the most unanimous and energetic shouts and catcalls. We hate them, these miserable vehicles. . . . Some soldiers even spit on them, as if [the wagons] could understand and suffer from the abuse with which they are covered.”

They also began to hate those who looked after them, a tendency that was encouraged, according to Reibell, by some staff officers who cited deliberate sabotage by the Kabyle conductors for the expedition’s difficulties rather than their poor planning and organization. The Kabyles were accused of stealing supplies destined for the front and even of making the return trip of the evacuated soldiers piled in the bins of the Lefèbvre wagons so miserable that many died. No doubt some of these accusations were true. However, it was obvious that the logistical planning of the expedition had been so haphazard as to be almost criminally negligent. As demonstrated in Tonkin and Dahomey, porterage was a crucial element in the success of a campaign, as critical as the combative qualities of the troops. In Dahomey, Dodds had assembled 1,858 porters for a force of 1,366 men, and given strict orders that they “be treated without brutality,” be paid regularly and carry no more than thirty kilos. Each soldier was assigned a porter who carried his pack. And while these orders were not always followed to the letter, especially as the campaign became more difficult and more porters attempted flight, at least they sustained the Dahomey column well in the opening weeks, when it virtually destroyed the Dahoman army.

By contrast, in Madagascar the requirement for porters and drivers had been desperately underestimated, so that, even with the Lefebvre wagons, soldiers had to carry their own packs, which added to their fatigue. Furthermore, planners had placed the Algerian porters and drivers low on their priority list—even on the ship out from Algeria, Reibell discovered that desperately inadequate arrangements had been made to feed the Kabyles. Once on shore, they had been expected to work all day and then virtually fend for themselves. “The Kabyles, who have been worn out and abused, are at the end of their tether,” Reibell recorded in September. “The hospitals refuse to receive them on the pretext that there is no room. No one looks after them even though they have the worst job to do. They leave before first light and arrive at the staging hut after midnight, battered, lacking food, sores on their feet and legs.” “Among these poor, ragged, pitiful devils, I was amazed to see a child perhaps ten years old at the most,” Legion Lieutenant Langlois wrote in August. “Like his comrades, he bravely led his mule, stretching out his little legs to follow the animal.”

Even Duchesne began to realize that, despite the arrival of reinforcements, his force was wasting away to the point that soon it would be incapable of combat. According to his report to the French parliament, on August 4 he took the decision to create a light column to press forward to Tananarive. Nevertheless, this column could not be created, he believed, until the road had reached Andriba, which would serve as the staging area for the projected offensive. In early September, the road, such as it was, was declared complete, and the light column began to form at Mangasoarina on the plain of Andriba. Three hundred fifty tons of supplies were collected there, and reinforcements, including 150 legionnaires, joined the force: “The most impressive of all these relief detachments was that of the Legion,” Reibell, who had seen them disembark at Majunga in mid-August, wrote. When, on September 12, Langlois witnessed the review of the men, including a battalion of the Legion, whom Duchesne had selected for the light column, he was less impressed. There, surrounded by the naked red mountains of Madagascar, 1,500 men stood to attention,

so dejected, so depressed, so pale, that one would have believed them more dead than alive. Their clothes were in rags, their boots in pieces, their helmets, too large for their emaciated heads, fell to their shoulders, covering almost entirely their yellow faces where only eyes the color of fever seemed to exist. And they seemed so pathetic, so poor, so miserable, that unconsciously tears came to the eyes.

On September 14, the light column left Andriba. In the van was the régiment d’Algérie, made up of two battalions of Algerian tirailleurs and a battalion of the Legion. A second group had at its nucleus the aptly named régiment mixte, which contained a battalion of the 13th Marine Infantry Regiment and some Malagasies and Senegalese. In the rear, the remnants of the 200th Infantry Regiment and some more Africans and marines guarded the convoy. In all, 4,013 soldiers led by 237 officers and followed by 1,515 mule drivers and 2,809 mules left for Tananarive. Some pessimists were already calling this march “the suicide of General Duchesne,” but Langlois’s legionnaires were already dreaming of the riches to be found in the capital. Nevertheless, it was apparent as the column made its way off the plateau of Andriba and up the narrow valley of the Mamokomita that the countryside of rocky, naked slopes rising to jagged summits would be difficult enough to march through, much less fight over if a determined enemy chose to defend it. Therefore, it was with great relief that the column, after a march of seven miles, arrived at the foot of Mount Tafofo at the end of the Mamokomita defile to find it undefended.

The view from the summit was glorious—three large mountain massifs separated by valleys whose floors, made green by marshes, cacti and mango trees, contrasted with the stark, boulder-strewn slopes. However, hardly a mile and a half away a Hova army was in the process of throwing up fortifications along a ridge line near the village of Tsmainondry, which blocked the column’s projected line of march up the Firingalava valley. At dawn on the following morning, Duchesne launched his troops into the attack. The task of the Legion was to carry out a frontal assault, wading through the marshes that covered the valley floor and attacking up the slopes, while other units flanked the positions. However, hardly were they through the marshes than the Hova artillery opened up. Fortunately, few of their shells exploded. The legionnaires began to fire on the offending batteries from over two thousand yards away, inaccurate from such a great distance, but enough to send the Hova troops dressed in their white lambas, a shawl-like garment, scattering like the flocks of aquatic birds that the legionnaires had raised while wading through the marsh. “One of the defenders, probably believing that his resistance had been sufficient, got up, looked around, and bolted off with no self respect,” wrote Langlois.

The entire trench, worried, became agitated. Two or three other men got up, looked about, and…, like their comrade, took French leave. That proved too much for the delicate morale of the intrepid warriors of Ranavalo. As one man, like those jack-in-the-boxes pushed out on their springs, they suddenly surged out of the back of the parapets and disappeared rapidly down the thousands of ravines which furrowed the terrain, throwing away their arms so as to run faster. We saluted this grotesque flight with the most energetic catcalls.

Yet the undignified retreat of the Hovas before Tsmainondry, while gratifying, simply allowed the French to march on to the next, and many believed the most formidable, obstacle of the campaign, the Ambohimenas mountains. The route of the column climbed the valley of the Firingalava river, wading through torrents that spilled down mountainsides so steep that only with difficulty could the mules be kept from tumbling into the water below. The fatigue of the men was obvious, and a wake of stragglers trailed behind the advancing French who, on the 17th, could see the great mass of the Ambohimenas, which lay across their path in the distance. Duchesne made camp to allow the remainder of the plodding column to catch up, and on the 18th ordered a night march to approach the Hova defense lines. The men ate their meager rations and then bent into a path that led straight up the mountainside. “The men . . . advanced with great difficulty,” according to Langlois. “We were obliged to use clubs to make these poor feverish men march. We struck them with a heavy heart, but absolutely convinced that our duty and their interest commanded it. All who remained behind are lost men.”

When dawn broke, the Hova fortifications were visible atop the high ridge to the front. The régiment d’Algérie was given the task, once again, of mounting a frontal assault, while the régiment mixte climbed the mountain to turn the Hova positions on the flanks. As the legionnaires approached, puffs of black powder smoke appeared from the heights, but the defenders were firing from a distance too great to cause any damage. The Hova artillery soon joined in, but it shot badly. Even though the legionnaires and tirailleurs were still over a mile away, the line of Hovas in their white lambas lower down the slopes rose up and began grappling their way toward the fortifications on the summit, sowing panic. Duchesne ordered his legionnaires and tirailleurs forward toward groups of men milling around some of the fortifications that had yet to be abandoned, when the appearance of the marines and Malagasy tirailleurs, recruited among Sakalave tribesmen, traditional enemies of the Hovas, on the ridge to their flank precipitated a complete panic. “Despite the fact that our troops were beginning to become accustomed to the speed with which the Hovas ordinarily break off the combat,” Duchesne reported, “they had the profound surprise to see them abandon completely their formidable positions and beat a retreat along the entire front.”

The French now stood on the threshold of the Hova heartland. From the naked heights of the Ambohimenas, they could look out over a spread of plateaus covered by a checkerboard of rice paddies and small villages surrounded by hedges of cactus. All that lay before them now was a few days of hard marching. According to E. F. Knight, the Malagasy commander-in-chief had told his prime minister that “I can do nothing. My men will not stand. They run away as soon as they perceive that two or three of their friends have been killed. Nothing will stop them.” An English officer trying to put some backbone into the Hova army told him that, in their panic to get away from the French attack on the Ambohimenas, fully 300 soldiers had tumbled over a precipice and been killed. Soldiers had bribed their officers to run away “so as to have an excuse for saving their own skins,” which had reduced the army, which had numbered around 7,000 on September 12, to 1,313 starving men by September 23. To be fair to the Hovas, on the Ambohimenas their soldiers probably had shot up what little ammunition they had been given while the French were still well out of range. The Hova government was calling up miserable peasants and even prisoners, who passed through the streets of Tananarive shackled by the neck, to carry out a last-ditch defense of the capital.

However, the ability of the French to take advantage of Hova confusion and demoralization was impaired by their own condition, which verged upon utter collapse—the light column was barely in a fit state to lurch forward, much less administer a knockout punch. Langlois believed that the mere effort to climb the Ambohimenas had cost the attackers a tenth of their strength. Patrols sent out returned only with corpses already stiff with death, victims of the night cold of the mountains, or exhausted by the intense heat of the day. Several had obviously committed suicide. Indeed, suicide had already manifested itself in the Legion—on September 3, Langlois’s company had marched out of camp past the body of one of their soldiers who had hanged himself from a mango tree. In the wee hours of the morning of September 21, a legionnaire shot himself through the head with a bullet that then pierced the colonel’s tent, narrowly missing him. On the following day, a second man in his company shot himself just before dawn: “Our excellent paymaster … is of the opinion that the men are intentionally killing themselves just to force him to write out the death certificates, a work which he claims to detest,” wrote Langlois. Lentonnet noted on July 27, even before the light column set out, that “Suicides are very rare in the regiment of Algerian tirailleurs. But they are more frequent in the Legion. In three days, there have been no less than six legionnaires who have killed themselves. Yesterday, one hanged himself, another blew his brains out.” On September 21 he again recorded that “suicides are more and more frequent in the Legion, which is becoming demoralized.”

Langlois agreed that morale was seriously low: “In the silent camp, the men seem discouraged and without energy,” he wrote. “It is the first time since the beginning of the campaign, that I have noticed such an utter demoralization.” Low morale, a great danger in any unit, was thought especially serious in the Legion. Legionnaires, because of their pasts, were believed to be psychologically fragile, apt to give themselves over to expressions of despair, of which suicide was one. It is possible, as some believed, that for many legionnaires enlistment had been an alternative to suicide. Raimond Premschwitz and Flutsch both admitted that they had considered it, and that the Legion, for them, had been an option of last resort. Frederic Martyn also recommended it for those who were contemplating suicide, because “it may possibly introduce you to a zest of life that you have never felt, and in any case you can commit suicide just as well in Algeria, you know, as you can in London.” But service as an antidote to suicide might not work in every case. Jacques Weygand, who commanded a Legion cavalry squadron in the 1930s, believed legionnaires particularly susceptible to “crises, whims and depression.” However, the theory, in any case, was that the active life of the Legion kept these under control. Suicide, like desertion, hit its peak in calm garrisons where “they must look themselves in the mirror, and it’s not happy.” For this reason, Legion officers were always careful to keep their men busy and occupied, to prevent unconstructive brooding over the past, “to distract their men, to tear them from the mortal prostration which grips the best ones.”

Therefore, two perceptions seem prevalent about suicide in the Legion. The first is that the Legion had a relatively high suicide rate, at least higher than that of other corps. The second is that suicide appeared to occur more frequently in garrison because legionnaires, predisposed to depression in conditions of enforced boredom and inactivity, rose to the occasion when confronted with the challenges of a campaign. Neither of these is possible to resolve with any certainty. French historian Bernard Savelli concluded in his thesis on the Legion in Tonkin before World War I that suicides in the Legion at that time averaged only three or four a year, and the rate was no higher than those of other corps, including the Algerians. But as has been seen, Indochina, at least after 1885, became a garrison of choice, with enough distractions to adjourn thoughts of suicide except among those most inclined toward self-destruction. No comparative statistics exist for Algeria, which was a far less attractive garrison. However, Savelli seemed to agree with the second perception, that suicides declined on campaign, citing as his evidence that only one legionnaire committed suicide during the grueling, and apparently hopeless, defense of Tuyen Quang. Likewise, the regimental diaries for Tonkin in 1885 and Dahomey in 1892 make no mention of suicides, nor do the memoirs mention any.

The Legion battalion in the light column counted six suicides, and it appears that eleven of the sixteen suicides that occurred in the Algerian regiment during the campaign were in the Legion. And while this is certainly not catastrophic, other suicides might have passed unnoticed among the thirty-three legionnaires listed as “missing” from the light column. There are perhaps three explanations of why Madagascar appears to have produced the exception to the general rule that suicides in the Legion declined on campaign. One, of course, is that the evidence is too fragmentary to draw a firm conclusion, that there were suicides in Tonkin in 1885 and during the Dahomey expedition of 1892 that were not recorded. However, the common sense explanation would suggest that suicides in those two campaigns were too rare to be considered worthy of mention.


Watch the video: ΣΤΟ ΒΕΛΙΓΡΑΔΙ Η ΓΡΑΜΜΑΤΟΥΛΑ ΧΡΗΣΤΙΔΟΥ (January 2022).