The Armenian Genocide as a Case for Preventing Self-Determination

The official attitude on the Armenian Genocide and the systematic practice of ethnic cleansing in Anatolia has reached a new stage with the recent statement by Vecdi Gonul, the former Turkish minister of national defense, to the effect that had these tragic events not occurred, the present-day Republic of Turkey could not have come into being. Repulsive as these words may be, we have to admit that they are much more honest than pure denial, and imply admission of what has happened.

However, that these tragedies should be presented as necessary, even indispensible, for the building of a nation-state, accompanied by a take it or leave it kind of challenge, also comprises an implicit element of threat: Weve done it before, so youd better watch out or well do it again!

Were this admission to have been complemented with an apology, as Ahmet Insel writes in the newspaper Radikal, it could have provided a positive opening.

Today, it is incumbent upon the Turkish state to extend an apology, he writes. We who continue to live on this territory owe it as an act of humanity to the Armenians [and to others-RZ] to apologize for what has happened (An Apology Is Now a Must, Radikal Iki, Nov. 16, 2008, p. 1).

In this context, I would like to draw attention to two books recently published, both of which facilitate the study and comprehension of the Armenian Genocide, one of the most tragic events in human history, relating to the national question and the exercise of the right to self-determination: Vahakn N. Dadrians magnum opus The History of the Armenian Genocide: Ethnic Conflict from the Balkans to Anatolia to the Caucasus (published in Turkish under the title Ermeni Soykirimi Tarihi/Balkanlardan Anadolu ve Kafkasyaya Etnik Catisma by Belge Uluslararasi Yayincilik in 2008) and The Turks and Us by Shahan Natalie, famous for Operation Nemesis (the book was published in Turkish under the title Biz Ermeniler ve Turkler by Peri Yayinlari, again in 2008). These books provide an opportunity to understand not 1915 alone, but the period before and after as well. Shahan Natalies observation, the Turks succeeded in building a nation is interesting, provided one pose the question, at what cost?

In studying the Armenian tragedy of 1915, it would be useful, if one wishes to understand the question better, to look at the question from the perspective of nation building, self-determination, and the fundamental articles of the Genocide Convention.

The Armenian Question is one of the most significant instances of the method of leaving a problem to rot rather than solving it. In a certain sense, it is one of the last in a long line of problems created by the two-century-long dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.

While the Balkan peoples stepped into the process of nation formation earlier, that is, from the early 19th century onwards, partly under the influence of the French revolution, this process came on the order of the day much later for the Armenian people and the Turks themselves. However, in the latter case, the success of one, in a way, was achieved at the expense of the disappearance of the other.

Thus while the Armenian process of nation formation started earlier relative to that of the Turks, it was a belated process when compared with the Greeks, the Serbs, and the Bulgarians. On the other hand, an important difficulty derived from the fact that the Armenian people were torn between two despotic empires. This division had its impact all the way down to language. The Armenian language was to develop in two different branches, as Western and Eastern Armenian.

The model that was in front of Armenian nation building was that in the Balkans, which was, in effect, to serve as a model for Turkish nation building, as well. Hence, the tragic character of the relations between the peoples of the Balkans would reach an apogee in Anatolian territory and an ancient autochthonous people would be nearly wrested forcibly from its living spaces and be subjected to purge. This purge would not remain limited to ethnic cleansing, but would come to include all cultural space.

The result desired was to prove that the Armenian people never lived on this territory.

This, of course, forms a typical case of genocide cum ethnic cleansing.

In the wake of the 1908 revolution, an attempt at a democratic revolution that nonetheless was going to stop halfway, the political leaders and the organizations of the Armenian people opted for coexistence. They established political alliances with Ottoman parties and ran in elections on common lists. However, the fragility of projects for a common future in the Ottoman political arena and the impossibility of making these a reality summoned once again the old problems.

The efforts of Balkan socialists such as Benaroya to bring models such as a federation on the order of the day so as to pave the way to a common future and the defense of the idea of decentralization (i.e., autonomy by certain groups) unfortunately did not create a great echo in the country. This was the period of nation building, of building unitary states whatever the cost may be. Some Armenian intellectuals adopted a friendly attitude to the approach of the Turk Ocaklari (the Turkish Hearths) aiming at nation building. The great musician Gomidas tried, for instance, to extend support in these milieux to the search for a national identity through music, for they believed that separate identities could coexist. Up until that accursed year of 1914. Yet in a multinational empire where geographic cohabitation was the rule, the formation of a unitary national state could only be predicated upon campaigns of ethnic cleansing. And for the defense of the right to self-determination and separation, one had to have a certain proportion within the population, a majority.

The Russo-Ottoman and the Balkan wars resulted in waves of forcible migration both from the Caucasus and the Balkans into Anatolia. The newly formed Balkan states, in particular, were based on policies of strengthening the national fabric by forcing the others to migration, through policies of massacre and violence, and by assimilating the remaining populations.

In Macedonia, no ethnic group had a decisive plurality. This was a region coveted by three different nation states, the Serb, the Bulgarian, and the Greek. The fact that the different ethnicities each formed their own partisan group led to strife not only between the Ottoman state and these groups, but also between themselves. In the end, Macedonia came to be partitioned between these three states and every group drove the others out, melting the remaining population in the national crucible.

The utter lack of law and order in the Balkans forced the Ottomans to accept European powers to assume the role of gendarmes on the peninsula. A similar situation of lawlessness was to be seen in eastern Anatolia from the point of view of Armenians.

In 1914, the Ottoman government acquiesced under the pressure of the Great Powers, and in particular Russia, to start a reform program similar to that implemented in Macedonia in eastern Anatolia, which was densely populated by the Armenians. This created panic in the Ottoman government that even Anatolia was being lost. On the other hand, there was need for space for the great wave of migration from the Balkans.

The country was ravaged by an economic crisis as a result of the Balkan wars and the government was bankrupt. For its part, the great Ottoman Army, which had recently been modernized, had suffered humiliating defeat at the hands of the newly formed Balkan states, which had taken aback even the West. The fact that the Albanians, one of the most loyal subjects of the sultan, had, for the first time, overcome their religious division to rise in revolt, had given these small states the possibility of joining forces and the courage to make a move.

The Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) entrusted the task of reorganizing the devastated Ottoman Army to the Germans, and by starting a ruthless policy of violence in the military tried to establish a discipline akin to Prussian methods.

The Arabs, following in the footsteps of the Albanians, also started to vociferously put forth their demands. The Kurds, for their part, insisted in remaining loyal to the caliphate.

The CUP found the way out of this mesh of problems in entering World War I under the command of German militarism. It is a fact that Armenian leaders tried to talk the CUP leaders out of this orientation simply because this was bound to put the Armenian people in a difficult situation. In the meantime, the CUP leaders suspended the Armenian reform using the excuse of the war effort. The Armenians, so the argument went, could force the Muslim population to emigrate and could then impose the right to self-determination.

On the other hand, significant forces of the Ottoman Army were decimated under harsh winter conditions on the Allahuekber Mountains as a result of a campaign under the command of none other than Enver Pasha himself. The only method to prevent the formation of an Armenian state was to cleanse this people from its historic territory. This meant the deportation of an entire people, including women, the elderly, and children, who were to be put on an exile journey headed towards the Syrian desert. The excuse provided for this forced exile was Armenian revolutionaries; in other words, it was the revolutionaries who were held responsible for what happened to their own people. It is of interest to note that the official explanation provided for the entire world in 1916 has to this very day formed the overall substance of how Turkey defends itself.

It is, of course, true that some Armenian organizations had their partisan groups, and these did stage actions. But, contrary to what the official view has claimed to this day, this can never legitimize the wholesale annihilation of civilians. Today, even insurgent forces, let alone civilians, have rights and a status within the framework of the Geneva Conventions on war.

On the other hand, we know of the existence of Armenian soldiers and officers who served in the Ottoman Army up to the end of the war or died in Gallipoli or the Allahuekber Mountains. So much so that, on his return to Istanbul after the debacle, Enver Pasha published a statement praising the heroism of Armenian soldiers.

The accusation leveled at an entire people for treason on the basis of the actions of certain groups and the forcible deportation of this people in a manner that would necessarily destroy it cannot be understood without the logic of ethnic cleansing that lies behind them.

To cite a simple example, using PKK actions as an excuse, the entire Kurdish population has not been subjected to a kind of deportation that would leave only a handful of survivors. Even this simple example shows that holding Armenian revolutionaries responsible for the 1915 deportation is hardly convincing.

Nation building is the process that creates the highest number of victims in this world. It is also the creation of a single identity in a melting pot, a fictional thing. Benedict Anderson analyzes nation-building processes particularly in the post-World War II context and the prices paid. The suffering, the exile, and the massacres experienced during the formation of the nation-states of the Balkans are testimony to this. In a certain sense, it was the Armenian people that paid dearly the cost of this whole process in the Balkans.

On the basis of a mechanical outlook on history, the leaders of Turkey thought that the process in the Balkans was going to be followed by Armenian nation building. Those in charge had come to terms with the prospect of casualties and massacres, but no one imagined that this was going to turn into a genocide.

The CUP leaders wished to rule out the possibility of the establishment of Armenia in case the Ottoman state lost the war. But how could a people that had been physically decimated found a state?

On the other hand, Armenia was seen as a nuisance in the midst of the coveted empire called Turan. The Sevres Peace Treaty signed after the war stipulated a greater Armenia alongside a small Kurdistan.

But how to establish a state without a people? This indeed was the real reason the Sevres Treaty was stillborn.

Hence, the CUP method of solving the Armenian Question was, within the confines of its own logic, successful. And it also paved the way for the foundation of the Turkish nation-state. To an ambassador who was still talking about the Armenian Question in 1916, Talat Pashas answer was no longer does there exist such a question (Cf. Taner Akcam, Ermeni Meselesi Hallolunmustur, Iletisim Yayinlari, 2008). One wonders whether this was a method based on intuition against the right to self-determination, or if the lessons of the Balkans and the massacres practiced by German imperialism in West Africa served as a model.

From the military point of view, the Armenian Deportation can only be characterized as an excellent operation. When you look at the maps displaying the routes of forcible migration, you can sense the contribution of Prussian militarism in the preparation of these plans. Given their debacle in the Balkans, it seems hardly credible that the CUP adventurers would be able to execute such an operation all on their own.

One really wonders to what extent the experience of the atrocities perpetrated by the German colonial army in West Africa had its impact on all this. Is it pure coincidence that many German officers who were commanders in the Ottoman Army later took part in the early organization drive of fascism in Germany and participated in the 1923 Beer Hall Putsch of Hitler? The German military could have stopped the deportation, had they so willed. On the contrary, in the military operations in Zeytun, Urfa, and Van, where the Armenians put up a partial resistance, German soldiers actively participated, let alone prevented what was happening.

But the depopulation of this territory was in line with the wishes of many colonial powers. The German right wanted Anatolia to be opened up for German settlement in the future (Cf. Lothar Rathmann, Alman Emperyalizminin Turkiyeye Girisi, trans. Ragip Zarakolu, 2nd ed., Belge Yayinlari, 1992).

For its part, when in 1916 the Russian tsar took hold of eastern Anatolia, he decided to settle Cossacks in the region to replace surviving Armenians, which of course created great consternation among Armenian intellectuals.

Had there been no Soviet Revolution, Armenia would not have come into existence. Just as it would have been very difficult for a state like Turkey to come into being. It is not the slightest irony of history that it was the same revolution of 1917 and the new international balance of forces that it brought in its wake that made it possible for these two states, which do not recognize each other officially, to exist.

To sum up, if you look into the UN Genocide Convention, you are bound to see that all the fundamental elements find their place in the Armenian case. The policies of the CUP, on the other hand, were reminiscent of those of a proto-fascist party. In other words, this was a case of fascism avant la lettre. Precisely in the same way as the de facto occurrence of genocide in 1915, even before the concept genocide itself had come into circulation.

The end result is that the Anatolian region has lost its Armenian sons and daughters. The ethnic cleansing operation later reached out towards the eradication of historic buildings and even cemeteries. How could a people that did not exist, that even left no trace behind it, reclaim its rights?

In the final analysis, the material basis for the exercise of the right to self-determination for the Armenian people was destroyed. It was not for nothing that Hitler, on the eve of the attack on Poland in 1939, asked at a meeting the question, Who remembers the Armenian people nowadays? (Cf. Kevork Bardakciyan, Hitler ve Ermeni Soykirimi, editor: Ragip Zarakolu, Istanbul, 2006).
http://asbarez.com/104695/the-armenian-genocide-as-a-case-of-preventing-self-determination/






April/21/2012
Turkey is not like China. Turkey is, just like Italy, Greece, Spain and Portugal.
www.hurriyetdailynews.com

I will be a supporter of the Armenian claims if they prove the contradiction between the existence of Ottoman Armenians (in France, United States, Lebanon...etc.) and the so-called Armenian Genocide.

Expulsion and Emigration of the Muslims from the Balkans
As the Ottoman Empire entered a permanent phase of decline in the late 17th century it was engaged in a protracted state of conflict, losing territories both in Europe and the Caucasus. The victors were the Christian States, the old Habsburg and Romanov Empires and the new nation-states of Greece, Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria.[20] Rival European powers encouraged the development of nationalist ideologies among the Ottoman subjects in which the Muslims were portrayed as an ethnic fifth column leftover from a previous era that could not be integrated into the planned future states. The struggle to rid themselves of Ottomans became an important element of the self-identification of the Balkan Christians.[21]

According to Mark Levene, the Victorian public in the 1870s paid much more attention to the massacres and expulsions of Christians than to massacres and expulsions of Muslims, even if on a greater scale. He further suggests that such massacres were even favored by some circles. Mark Levene also argues that the dominant powers, by supporting "nation-statism" at the Congress of Berlin, legitimized "the primary instrument of Balkan nation-building": ethnic cleansing.[22] Hall points out that atrocities were committed by all sides during the Balkan conflicts. Deliberate terror was designed to instigate population movements out of particular territories. The aim of targeting the civilian population was to carve ethnically homogeneous countries.[23]

During the Russo-Turkish War of 17871792 the Russian Army commander Alexander Suvorov successfully the fortress of Izmail on December 22, 1790. Ottoman forces inside the fortress had the orders to stand their ground to the end, haughtily declining the Russian ultimatum. Suvorov announced the capture of Ismail in 1791 to the Tsarina Catherine in a doggerel couplet, after the assault had been pressed from house to house, room to room, and nearly every Muslim man, woman, and child in the city had been killed in three days of uncontrolled massacre, 40,000 Turks dead, a few hundred taken into captivity. For all his bluffness, Suvorov later told an English traveller that when the massacre was over he went back to his tent and wept.[24]

Justin McCarty estimates that between 1821 and 1922 around five and a half million Muslims were driven out of Europe and five million more were killed or died of disease and starvation while fleeing.[25] Cleansing occurred as a result of the Serbian and Greek independence in the 1820s and 1830s, the Russo-Turkish War 18771878, and culminating in the Balkan Wars 19121913. Mann describes these acts as murderous ethnic cleansing on stupendous scale not previously seen in Europe referring to the 1914 Carnegie Endowment report.[26][27] It is estimated that at the turn of the 20th century there were 4,4 million Muslims living in the Balkan zone of Ottoman control.[28] More than one million Muslims left the Balkans in the last three decades of the 19th century.[29] Between 1912 and 1926 nearly 2.9 million Muslims were either killed or forced to emigrate to Turkey.[28]

Between 10,000[30] and 30,000[31][32][33] Turks were killed in Tripolitsa by Greek rebels in the summer of 1821, including the entire Jewish population of the city. Similar events as these occurred also elsewhere during the Greek Revolution resulting in the eradication and expulsion of virtually the entire Turkish population of the Morea. These acts ensured the ethnic homogenization of the area under the rule of the future modern Greek state.[34] In 1830 the Muslims population in Morea is put at 300,000. In 1878 the Muslim inhabitants in Thessaly are estimated to be 150,000 and in 1897 the Muslims numbered 50,000 in Crete. By 1919 there were virtually no Muslims left in Morea and Thessaly and only 20,000 in Crete.[35]

In the Bulgarian insurgency of the April Uprising in 1876 an estimate of 1,000 Muslims were killed.[36][37] During the Russo-Turkish War a significant number of Turks were either killed, perished or became refugees. There are different estimates about the casualties of the war. Crampton describes an exodus of 130,000-150,000 expelled of which approximately half returned for an intermediary period encouraged by the Congress of Berlin. Hupchick and McCarthy point out that 260,000 perished and 500,000 became refugees.[38][39] The Turkish scholars Karpat and Ipek argue that up to 300,000 were killed and 11.5 million were forced to emigrate.[40][41] Members of the European press who covered the war in Bulgaria reported on the Russian atrocities against Muslims. Witness accounts from Schumla and Razgrad describe children, women and elderly wounded by sabres and lances. They stated that the entire Muslim population of many villages had been massacred.[42] Recently uncovered photographs in the archive of the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs from the Russo-Turkish War 18771878 show the massacre of Muslims by the Russians in the region of Stara Zagora claiming to have affected some 20,000 Muslim civilians.[43]

Massacres against Turks and Muslims during the Balkan Wars in the hands of Bulgarians, Greeks and Armenians are described in detail in the 1912 Carnegie Endowment report.[44] Hupchick estimates that nearly 1,5 million Muslims died and 400,000 became refugees as a result of the Balkan Wars.[45] The Bulgarian violence during the Balkan War included burning of villages, transforming mosques into churches, rape of women and mutilation of bodies. It is estimated that 220,000 Pomaks were forcefully Christianized and forbidden to bear Islamic religious clothing.[46]


War Distribution Clothing to Bulgarian Muslim refugees in Shumla from The Illustrated London News 17th Nov 1877.

1.5 million Muslims used to live in Bulgaria before Russo-Turkish War (18771878). After the Turkish defeat, the Russian army along with irregular troops that included Cossacks entered Bulgaria and carried out massacres and deportations against Muslim people with the aid of the Bulgarians. Half a million Muslims succeeded in going to Ottoman controlled lands and 672.215 Muslim were reported to have remained after the war in Bulgaria. Approximately a quarter of a million Muslims perished from massacres, cold, disease and other harsh conditions.[47] "I can come to no other conclusion but that the Russians are carrying out a fixed policy exterminating the Moslem race".[48] According to Aubaret, the French Consul in Ruse in 1876 in the Danube Vilayet alone there were 1,120,000 Muslims and 1,233,500 non-Muslims of whom 1,150,000 were Bulgarian. Between 1876 and 1878, through massacres, epidemics, hunger and war a large portion of the Turkish population vanished. Turkish flow to Anatolia continued in a steady pattern depending on the policies of the ruling regimes until 1925 after which immigration was regulated. During the 20th century Bulgaria also practiced forced deportations and expulsions, which also targeted the Muslim Pomak population.[49]

Ethnic cleansing of Circassians and Persecution of Muslims
Former Russian President Boris Yeltsin's May 1994 statement admitted that resistance to the tsarist forces was legitimate, but he did not use the term genocide in his statement.[26] In 1997 and 1998, the leaders of Kabardino-Balkaria and of Adygea sent appeals to the Duma to reconsider the situation and to issue the needed apology; to date, there has been no response from Moscow. In October 2006, the Adygeyan public organizations of Russia, Turkey, Israel, Jordan, Syria, the USA, Belgium, Canada and Germany sent the president of the European Parliament a letter with a request to recognize the genocide against Adyghe people (Circassian).[citation needed]

Although there is no legal continuity between the Russian Empire and the modern Russian Federation, and the concept of genocide was only adopted in international law in the 20th century, on 5 July 2005 the Circassian Congress, an organization that unites representatives of the various Circassian peoples in the Russian Federation, called on Moscow first to acknowledge and then to apologize for Tsarist policies that Circassians say constituted a genocide. Their appeal pointed out that "according to the official tsarist documents more than 400,000 Circassians were killed, 497,000 were forced to flee abroad to Turkey, and only 80,000 were left alive in their native area."[26] Other sources give much higher numbers, totaling 1 million- 1.5 million deported and/or killed.[27] The movement has since been campaigning for the recognition of the "Circassian Genocide".[28] Nevertheless, the Circassians view the memory of the brutal expulsions and killings by the hand of Russia and the suffering they caused as a central part of the Circassian identity.[citation needed] Circassians have also taken issue with the 2014 Winter Olympics, to be held in Sochi, the Black Sea coast city and the supposed site of the final expulsion of the Circassians.[29]

On May 21, 2011, the Parliament of Georgia passed a resolution, stating that "pre-planned" mass killings of the Circassians by the Imperial Russia, accompanied by "deliberate famine and epidemics", should be recognized as "genocide" and those deported during those events from their homeland, should be recognized as "refugees." Georgia, thus, became the first country in the world to have recognized the Russian military campaign against the Circassians as a genocide. This came after a series of academic and parliamentary discussions in Tbilisi in 2010 and 2011.[30][31][32]

President of the Federal National Cultural Autonomy of Russian Circassians, Alexander Ohtov, says the term genocide is justified in his Kommersant interview:
"Yes, I believe that the concept of genocide against the Circassians was justified. To understand why we are talking about the genocide, you have to look at history. During the Russian-Caucasian war, Russian generals not only expelled the Circassians, but also destroyed them physically. Not only killed them in combat but burned hundreds of villages with civilians. Spared neither children nor women nor the elderly. The entire fields of ripe crops were burned, the orchards cut down, so that the Circassians could not return to their habitations. A destruction of civilian population on a massive scale is it not a genocide?"[33]

Immigration during the Republican period

Muhajirs in Istanbul 1912.

More than half a million ethnic Turks arrived from Greece as part of the population exchange between Greece and Turkey. After 1925, Turkey continued to accept Turkic speaking Muslims as immigrants and did not discourage the emigration of members of non-Turkic minorities. More than 90 percent of all immigrants arrived from the Balkan countries. Between 1935 and 1940, for example, approximately 124,000 Bulgarians and Romanians of Turkish origin immigrated to Turkey, and between 1954 and 1956 about 35,000 Muslim Slavs immigrated from Yugoslavia. In the fifty-five-year period ending in 1980, Turkey admitted approximately 1.3 million immigrants; 36 percent came from Bulgaria, 30 percent from Greece[citation needed], 22.1 percent from Yugoslavia, and 8.9 percent from Romania. These Balkan immigrants, as well as smaller numbers of Turkic immigrants from Cyprus and the Soviet Union, were granted full citizenship upon their arrival in Turkey. The immigrants were settled primarily in the Marmara and Aegean regions (78 percent) and in central Anatolia (11.7 percent).

The most recent immigration influx was that of Bulgarian Turks and Bosnian Muslims. In 1989 an estimated 320,000 Bulgarian Turks fled to Turkey to escape a campaign of forced assimilation. Following the collapse of Bulgaria's communist government that same year, the number of Bulgarian Turks seeking refuge in Turkey declined to under 1,000 per month. In fact, the number of Bulgarian Turks who voluntarily repatriated125,000exceeded new arrivals. By March 1994, a total of 245,000 Bulgarian Turks had been granted Turkish citizenship. However, Turkey no longer regards Bulgarian Turks as refugees. Beginning in 1994, new entrants to Turkey have been detained and deported. As of December 31, 1994, an estimated 20,000 Bosnians were living in Turkey, mostly in the Istanbul area. About 2,600 were living in camps; the rest were dispersed in private residences.

In 1994 the government claimed that as many as 2 million Iranians were living in Turkey, a figure that most international organizations consider to be grossly exaggerated. Turkey is one of the few countries that Iranians may enter without first obtaining a visa; authorities believe that the relative ease of travel from Iran to Turkey encourages many Iranians to visit Turkey as tourists, or to use Turkey as a way station to obtain visas for the countries of Europe and North America. Consequently, as many as 2 million Iranians actually may transit Turkeyincluding multiple reentries for many individualsin a given year. Specialized agencies of the European Union and the United Nations that deal with issues of migrants and refugees believe a more realistic figure of the number of Iranians who live in Turkey, and do not have a residence in Iran or elsewhere, is closer to 50,000. Despite a negative public opinion in Armenia, by 2010, there were between 22,000 and 25,000 Armenian citizens living illegally in Istanbul alone, according to Turkish officials.[5]

"I will be a supporter of the Armenian claims if they prove the contradiction between the existence of Ottoman Armenians (in France, United States, Lebanon...etc.) and the so-called Armenian Genocide."

Where is the contradiction? Are you saying that it wasn't a genocide because not all Armenias were wiped out?
With that logic there would not be anything called a genocide in the world.
Go check the international legal definition of the crime of genocide.


Power through Knowledge
"I hope for nothing. I fear nothing. I am free."
Nikos Kazantzakis

AN OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF MASSACRES BY ARMENIANS

The committees such as "Kara Hac / Black Cross", "Armenakan" and "Vatan Koruyuculari / Land Protectors " in Anatolia, " Hinchak " in Geneva, "Tasnak" in Tiblisi, were founded by the Armenians. Their targets were lands in the Eastern Anatolia and the union of the Ottoman Armenians.

The Armenian committees were provoked for this purpose, first they rioted in 1890 in Erzurum, afterwards they organized the Kumkapi demonstration, Kayseri, Yozgat, Corum and Merzifon events, Sasun revolt, Bab-i Ali / Sublime Porte demonstration, Zeytun and Van revolts, The raid of Osmanli Bankasi / Ottoman Bank, assassination trial to Sultan Abdülhamit, and Adana revolt in 1909. Due to the Armenian oppressions, 100 Turks in Zeytun in 1914, 3.000 Turks an kurts in Van events in 1915, and 20.000 Turks and Kurds lost their lives 1914 1915, in Mus Events.
Attacked the city of Kars 21/2/1914 and 50.000 (turks) deads

occupation by Armenians of Van
8/5/1916 Van, Tatvan 1.600 (Kurdish) deads
8-9/5/1916 Bitlis 35.000-50.000 /Turks or Kurds Muslims)
15-22/5/1916 Van town center 80.000-95.000 (Turks or Kurds Muslims) deads
01-30/30/1916 Edremid, Vastan 15.000 (Turks or Kurds) deads
15/5/1916 Bayezid 15.000 (Turks or Kurds) deads
01-30/4/1916 Muradiye 10.000 (Turks or Kurds) deads
11/06/1916 Malazgirt 20.000 (Turks) deads
12/7/1920 Kars, Digor 14620 (Turks) deads
1-30/7/1919 and 1920 Kars, Sarkam 8439 (Turks) deads
1-30/7/1919 Kars, town center 10.000-12.000 (Turks) deads
19/10/1920 Erzurum, town center 8439 (Turks) deads
1921 karakilise 6000 deads
1/1/1920-30/12/1920 Nahçvan -Azerbaijan 64408 deads(Azerbaijanis muslims)

Armenians gave the greatest harm to the Turkish people, by the massacring them during the First World War. In this period, the Armenians spied for the Russians, they fled from their military service, by not obeying the mobilisation orders, and those Armenians who were taken under arms joining onto the Russian Army, with their arms, and they thus committed collectively the guilt of being treacherous to the land . The Armenian bands that started to attack the Turkish Army and these bands have given great harm to the civilian people, as well. For example, the whole population of the Zeve village of the Van province massacred by the Armenian people without discriminating if they were women, children,
ARMENIAN REBELLIONS AND MASSACRES

THE REPORT ON EXCAVATION OF THE MASS-GRAVES IN KARS - SUBATAN
The archive documents show that a total of 570 people were murdered in the village. After the withdrawal of Armenians, Turkish soldiers came to the district. The soldiers with the help of survivors collected the corpses, which were decayed and eaten by dogs, to an area and put them in a barn.
THE EXCAVATION OF VAN - ZEVE MASS-GRAVE

Armenian Massacres in Van -
The Armenian guerrillas who entered the district under Russian support in 1915 started attacking the villages, killing innocent Kurkish and Moslem people. The Armenian guerillas brought into Zeve village about 2000-2500 people who were gathered by force from eight villages in the district and were put in houses and barns.
THE EXCAVATION THE MASS-GRAVE IN ERZURUM-DUMLU-YESILYAYLA VILLAGE
Approximately up to 100 of skeletons were excavated from the mass-grave. Materials found in the excavation have been exhibited in Erzurum museum.
EXCAVATION OF THE MASS-GRAVE IN IGDIR - OBA MUSLIMS VILLAGE
At the excavation, the first hole of 6x8 meters was started in the inner part of the northern door and a closed "iron lock" was found. The second hole was dug in the central part of the room and approximately 90 human skeletons were found under an earth layer of one meter thick.
MASSACRES BY ARMENIANS IN AZERBAIJAN
In fact, the events that started in 1988 in fact, form the last link in the chain of exile. The Azerbaijanis living in Armenia, were exiled from their historical lands several times, some of which were in the USSR / CCCP era in 1945. Arutunyan, the President of the Armenian Communist Party, wrote a letter, to Stalin for the giving of Nagorno Karabakh to Armenia. Stalin, in turn, sent a letter to Mir Cefer Bagirov, the President of Azerbaijan Communist Party Bagirov, in his reply to Stalin stated that Susa, whose population is composed of Azerbaijani people, should stay with Azerbaijan, and that Azerbaijani people also land demands from Armenians. Such an approach helped the closing of this artificial problem at that time.

However, the Council of Ministers of the former Soviet Union with the decision no 4088 dated December 23, 1947 decided to exile the Turks living in Armenia, to the Kura Aras Plain, under the name of Azerbaijani . Two and a half months later, the very same Council of Ministers, provided the application of the previous decision by their new decision No. 754, dated March 10, 1948 with the signature of Stalin. After the decision, the Azerbaijanis; living in Armenia were sent out of those places, and this process continued until Stalins death. In this period, more than 150.000 Azerbaijanis were expelled from their lands where their ancestors had lived for many years.

At the beginning of the century, the exile of the Azerbaijanis living in Armenia was realised in various ways. In 1927, Azerbaijanis formed the 70 % of the population living in Erivan. In those years, 130.000 Azerbaijanis were expelled and close to 100.000 Armenians were brought in their places from Middle Eastern countries. This process also continued in later years. According to the Armenian historians, out of the 2.000 of the 2.300 villages in Armenia, were Azerbaijani villages. After 1936, the Armenian authorities started to change and cancel the Azerbaijani place names and also in 1991, Armenian names were given to 90 Azerbaijani villages, in accordance with the order of Levon Ter Petrosyan, the President of Armenia. The changing of place names started in 1960s and 1970s under the presidency of Hovannes Bagdarasyan, the Deputy President of Armenian Supreme Soviet.

At the end of expelling and immigration acts conducted, which continued for two centuries, 1.500.000 Azerbaijani Turks were expelled from their historical homelands in Armenia and were forced to immigrate by several pretexts. In 1988, the expulsion process was completed.

At present, there is not even one single Azerbaijani in Armenia. In 1988, the Armenians made up 88.6 % of the population. The Armenian land was 9.000 km2 at the beginning of the century. Now it has reached 29.8 km2, due to the adoption of Azerbaijani lands. This figure does not include the lands invaded by the Armenians in the recent times.

It has to be accepted that the pressure of the Russian Armenian pair over Azerbaijan has been increased / intensified. Azerbaijan is almost about to turn into Lebanon soon. The danger of the land being broken up has not yet been avoided. The Armenians are still keeping control over the Lacin Corridor, which connect the Nagorno Karabakh and Armenia. 20 % of the Azerbaijani lands are under invasion of Armenia. On the other hand, Armenia has declared / announced in May 1992, that it has founded a Kurdish Republic in, in Lacin Kelbecer Region.

"Where is the contradiction? Are you saying that it wasn't a genocide because not all Armenias were wiped out?"

According to Ottoman Census there were 1,250,000 Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. Even the most extremist Armenian sources doesn't cite more than 2 million. However there are millions of Western Armenians in the world so everyone is alive.

Armenian genocide doesn't have anything to do with self-determination. Today Armenians have own state so they have self-determination. They are poor and miserable and hungry. First of all it was no genocide but deportation, let's get that straight, deportatin was necessary because Turks were majority living there and Armenians would kill or massacre the people there, so before they would do it we kicked them out.

-----------------------------