The Armenian question, which has convulsed Turkey so deeply and made
the Eastern question so intricate, originated in the grasping spirit
of Russia in Asia Minor and the meddling of Russia in Turkish affairs
under pretence of protecting the Armenians. This question, as proved
by the difficulties to which it has given rise since the beginning, is
one of the aspects of the antagonism between Slavs and Turks, and a
phase of the everlasting struggle of the Turks to hinder the Slavs from
reaching the shores of the Mediterranean Sea, to which the Russians
have always striven to get access either through Asia Minor or through
Thrace, or through both countries at once.
Yet Mohammed II, after taking Constantinople, had in 1461 instituted a
patriarchate in favour of the Armenians. Later on various rights were
granted to them at different times by Imperial firmans.
Some Armenian monks of Calcutta, availing themselves of the liberty
they enjoyed in India, founded at the beginning of the eighteenth
century the _Aztarar_ (the Newsmonger), the first newspaper published
in the Armenian language; and at the end of the same century the
Mekhitharists published in Venice _Yeghanak Puzantian_ (the Byzantine
Season). About the middle of the nineteenth century, the same monks
edited a review of literature and information, _Pazmareb_, which still
exists. The Protestant Armenians too edited a review of propaganda,
_Chtemaran bidani Kidehatz_, at Constantinople. Finally, in 1840,
the first daily paper printed in the Armenian language, _Archalouis
Araradian_ (the Dawn of Ararat), was published at Smyrna.
In 1857, in the monastery of Varag, near Van, Miguirditch Krimian, who
later on became Patriarch and Catholicos, established printing-works.
Under the title of _Ardziv Vaspourakani_ (the Eagle of Vaspourakan) he
edited a monthly review to defend the cause of Armenian independence,
and at the same time a similar review, _Ardziv Tarono_ (the Eaglet of
Taron), was published at Mush. About the same time the Armenians in
Russia too began to publish various periodicals, such as _Hussissapail_
(the Aurora Borealis), a review printed at Moscow in 1850, and several
newspapers at Tiflis and Baku. In 1860 the Armenians were allowed
to hold an Armenian National Assembly to discuss and settle their
religious and national affairs.
From the fourteenth century till about 1860, the Armenian element lived
on good terms with the Moslem element, and some Armenians persecuted
in Russia even sought refuge in Turkey. The Turks, on their coming,
had found Armenians, but no Armenia, for the latter country, in the
course of a most confused history, had enjoyed but short periods of
independence with ever-changing frontiers; and the Armenians who had
successively been under Roman, Seljuk, Persian, and Arabian dominion
lived quietly with the Turks for six centuries.
But in 1870 a group of young men revived and modified a movement which
had been started and kept up by Armenian monks, and wrote books in
Constantinople in favour of the Armenians.
In 1875, Portokalian established the first revolutionary Armenian
Committee, and edited a newspaper, _Asia_. Soon afterwards the
_Araratian_ committee was formed, aiming at establishing a close
connection between Turkish and Russian Armenians, followed by other
committees such as _Tebrotssassiranz_, _Arevelian_, and _Kilikia_.
Other committees with charitable or economic purposes, such as “The
Association of Kindness” and “The Association of Benevolence,” which
were started in 1860 with a large capital to develop the natural
resources of Cilicia, also played a part in the Armenian movement.
The Armenian question began really to arise and soon grew more and more
acute in 1878, after the Turco-Russian war, at a time when Turkey
had to face serious domestic and foreign difficulties. This question
was dealt with in Article 16 of the San Stefano treaty of July 10,
1878, and Article 61 of the Berlin treaty. Article 16 of the San
Stefano treaty, drawn up at the Armenians’ request, and supported by
the Russian plenipotentiaries, stated that “the Sublime Porte pledges
itself to realise without any more delay the administrative autonomy
rendered necessary by local needs in the provinces inhabited by
Armenians.” The Turks raised an objection to the words “administrative
autonomy” and wanted them to be replaced by “reforms and improvements,”
but the Russians then demanded the occupation of Armenia by the Tsar’s
troops as a guarantee. The Berlin Congress did away with this clause of
guarantee, and instead of the words proposed by Russia adopted those
asked for by Turkey.
In order to acquire a moral influence over the Armenians living in
Turkey and play a prominent part among them, the Orthodox Christians
who were devoted to the Tsar endeavoured to get themselves recognised
as a superior power by the patriarchate of Constantinople, and with the
help of Russian political agents they succeeded in their endeavours. It
was soon observed that the new connection between the Catholicos and
the Constantinople Patriarchate aimed at, and succeeded in, starting
an anti-Turkish movement within the Armenian populations of Russia and
Asia Minor.
When the Russians arrived close to Constantinople, at the end of the
Turco-Russian war, Nerses Varzabedian, who had succeeded Krimian, was
received by the Grand Duke Nicholas, and handed him a memorandum,
in which, after stating all the Armenian grievances against the
Ottoman Government, he asked “that the Eastern provinces of Asia Minor
inhabited by Armenians should be proclaimed independent or at least
should pass under the control of Russia.” Four prelates were sent
separately to Rome, Venice, Paris, and London to make sure of the
Powers’ support, and met together at the Berlin Congress. Though they
strongly advocated the maintenance of Article 16 of the San Stefano
treaty, they only succeeded in getting Article 61 of the Berlin treaty.
It was not until about 1885 that what was afterwards called the
Armenian movement began to be spoken of, and then some Armenian
revolutionaries who had sought shelter in England, France, Austria, and
America began to edit periodicals, form committees, inveigh against the
would-be Turkish exactions, and denounce the violation of the Berlin
treaty.
These ideas of independence soon made more and more headway and the
prelates who, after Nerses’ death, were known for their pro-Turkish
feelings, as Haroutian Vehabedian, Bishop of Erzerum, made Patriarch in
1885, were forsaken by the Armenian clergy and soon found themselves in
opposition to the committees.
In 1888 Khorene Achikian, who succeeded Vehabedian, was also accused of
being on friendly terms with the Turks, and the committees strove to
have him replaced by Narbey, who had been a member of the delegation
sent to Europe for the Berlin Congress.
This Armenian movement naturally caused some incidents between the
various elements of the population, which were magnified, brought by
the bishops and consuls to the knowledge of the European Powers, and
cited as the outcome of Turkish cruelty.
After the Turco-Russian war, the revolutionary agitation which stirred
up Russia and the Caucasus had its repercussion among the Armenians,
and the harsh measures of the Tsar’s Government only strengthened the
agitation by increasing Armenian discontent.
Miguirditch Portokalian, a teacher living at Van, came to Marseilles,
where in 1885 he edited a newspaper, _Armenia_. At the same time Minas
Tscheraz started another newspaper in Paris under the same title. These
publicists, both in their journals and in meetings, demanded that
Article 61 of the Berlin treaty should be carried out.
In 1880 some revolutionary committees were formed in Turkey. In 1882
“The Association of the Armed Men” was founded at Erzerum; some of its
members were arrested, and the association itself was dissolved in 1883.
A rising took place at Van in 1885 on the occasion of the election of a
bishop, and some insurrectionist movements occurred at Constantinople,
Mush, and Alashehr under various pretexts.
Next year, in 1886, one Nazarbey, a Caucasian by birth, and his
wife Maro, formed in Switzerland the _Huntchag_ (the Bell), a
social-democrat committee that aimed at getting an autonomous
administration for the Armenians, and published in London a monthly
periodical bearing the same name. This committee meant to achieve its
object not through the intervention or mediation of the European
Powers—to which it thought it useless to make another appeal, as their
individual interests were so much at variance—but solely by the action
of its organisations throughout the country, which were to raise funds,
equipment, foment troubles, weaken the Government, and take advantage
of any opportunity that might occur.
The _Huntchag_ committee found representatives in every great
town—Smyrna, Aleppo, Constantinople, etc.—and its organisation was
completed in 1889.
In 1890, at the instigation of the Huntchagists, a rebellion broke out
at Erzerum, and incidents occurred in various places. At Constantinople
a demonstration of armed men, headed by the Patriarch Achikian,
repaired to the Sublime Porte to set forth their grievances, but
were scattered; and the Patriarch, who was reproached with being too
moderate, and whose life was even attempted, had to resign.
In fact the _Huntchag_ committee, which enlisted the effective and
moral support of the representatives of the Powers, especially those of
Russia and England, carried on its intrigues without intermission, and
increased its activity.
On Sunday, March 25, 1894, at Samsun, in the ground adjoining the
church, one Agap, living at Diarbekir, who had been chosen by the
_Huntchag_ committee to kill the Patriarch Achikian because he was
accused of being on friendly terms with the Ottoman Government, fired
at the prelate with a revolver, but missed his mark. After this
criminal attempt, Achikian resigned his office, and Mathew Ismirlian,
supported by the committees, was elected Patriarch, owing to the
pressure brought to bear on the National Assembly. The new Patriarch
immediately became chairman of the _Huntchag_ committee, which he
developed, and soon after appointed President of the Ecclesiastical
Council of the Patriarchate and later on Catholicos of Cilicia a
certain priest, Kirkor Alajan, who had been dismissed and sent to
Constantinople for insulting the Governor of Mush.
A few Armenians, dissatisfied with the programme of the Huntchagists,
founded a new association in 1890 under the name of _Troshak_, which
later on was called _Tashnaktsutioun_, and edited the _Troshak_
newspaper. The members of this committee often resorted to threats
and terror to get the funds they needed, and did not shrink from
assassinating whoever refused to comply with the injunctions of the
committee.
In 1896 the committees attempted to seize the Ottoman Bank. Some armed
komitadjis, who had come from Europe with Russian passports, rushed
into the Ottoman Bank, but were driven back by Government troops.
But the promoters of the raid were not arrested, owing to their
being protected by the Russian and French authorities. Attended by
Maximof, an Armenian by birth, first dragoman of the Russian embassy,
and Rouet, first dragoman of the French embassy, they were brought
by the dispatch-boat of the latter embassy on board the _Gironde_,
a packet-ship of the Messageries Maritimes. The adherents of the
_Troshak_, entrenched in the churches of Galata, Samatra, and the
Patriarchate, begged for mercy, while Armene Aktoni, one of the leaders
of the committee, committed suicide after waiting for the coming of
the English fleet on the heights of Soulou-Monastir, at Samatra.
The bishops continued to solicit, and to some extent obtained,
the support of the Russian, English, and French consuls; yet Mgr.
Ismirlian, who had sent an ultimatum to the Imperial Palace and never
ceased to intrigue, was finally dismissed in 1896 and sent to Jerusalem.
At that time many Armenians set off to Europe and America, and the
Catholicos of Etchmiadzin sent some delegates to the Hague Conference
to lay before it the Armenian plight in Turkey. These committees, which
displayed so much activity in Turkey, did not attempt anything on
behalf of their fellow-countrymen in Russia.
The committees which had been founded during or before Nerses’
patriarchate under the names of _Ararat_, _The Orient_, _The Friends
of Education_, _Cilicia_, were all grouped, in 1890, into one called
_Miatzal Anikeroutioun Hayotz_, which association continued to
organise committees even in the smallest villages, taking advantage
of the tolerance of the Ottoman Government and its benevolence to the
Armenians to carry on an active anti-Turkish propaganda.
This propaganda was supported by the Armenian bishops in the eastern
provinces, where they endeavoured to bring about European intervention.
On the other hand the Russians, as eager as ever to domineer over both
the Orthodox Church and Armenia, incited the Armenians against the
Turks by all possible means and urged them to fulfil their national
aspirations, as they knew full well they would thus bring them more
easily under Russian sovereignty.
The influence of these committees, as will be seen later on, had a very
important bearing on the events that took place in Asia Minor at that
time.
Risings, which may be traced back to 1545 and lasted till the
proclamation of the 1908 constitution, were continually taking place in
the mountainous area of Zeitun. They were partly brought about by the
feudal system of administration still prevailing in that region. Each
of the four districts of Zeitun was governed by a chief who had assumed
the title of “ishehan” or prince, a kind of nobleman to whom Turkish
villages had to pay some taxes collected by special agents. The action
of the committees, of course, benefited by that state of things, to
which the Ottoman Government put an end only in 1895.
The Armenians had already refused to pay the taxes and had rebelled
repeatedly between 1782 and 1851, at which time the Turks, incensed
at the looting and exactions of the Armenian mountaineers, left their
farms and emigrated. Till that time the rebellions of Zeitun could be
partly accounted for by the administration of the “ishehan.” But the
leaders of the Armenian movement soon took advantage of these continual
disturbances and quickly gave them another character. The movement was
spurred on and eagerly supported by Armenians living abroad, and in
1865, after the so-called Turkish exactions, the Nationalist committees
openly rebelled against the Government and demanded the independence
of Zeitun. Henceforth rebellion followed rebellion, and one of them,
fomented by the Huntchagists, lasted three months.
In 1890 the _Huntchag_ and _Tashnaktsutioun_ committees stirred up
riots at Erzerum, and in 1894 at Samsun, where the Patriarch Ashikian
was fired at, as has just been seen. In 1905 the Tashnakists started a
new insurrection. The rebellion extended to Amasia, Sivas, Tokat, Mush,
and Van, and the committees endeavoured to spread and intensify it. In
1905-06 the manœuvres of the Armenian committees succeeded in rousing
hostile feelings between Kurds and Armenians, which no reform whatever
seemed able to soothe. And in 1909-10, when new troubles broke out, the
revolutionary leaders openly attacked the Government troops.
Two years after the confiscation and handing over to the Ottoman
Government of the Armenian churches on June 21, 1903, massacres
took place at Batum on February 6, 1905, and later on at Erivan,
Nakhitchevan, Shusha, and Koshak. In 1908 the Tsar’s sway in the whole
of Caucasus became most oppressive, and a ukase prescribed the election
of a new catholicos to succeed Mgr. Krimian, who had died in October,
1907. Mgr. Ismirlian was appointed in his stead in 1908. By that time
the Russian sway had become so oppressive that the Tashnakists took
refuge in Constantinople, where the Young Turks openly declared in
favour of the Russian Armenians.
* * * * *
It might have been expected that after the proclamation of the
Constitution the committees, who had striven to hurry on the downfall
of the Empire through an agitation that might have brought about
foreign intervention, would put an end to their revolutionary schemes
and turn their activity towards social and economic questions.
Sabah-Gulian, a Caucasian by birth, president of the _Huntchag_, at
a meeting of this committee held in 1908 in Sourp-Yerourtoutioun
church at Pera, speaking of the Huntchagists’ programme and the
constitutional régime, declared: “We, Huntchagists, putting an end to
our revolutionary activity, must devote all our energy to the welfare
of the country.” On the other hand Agnoni, a Russian by birth, one of
the presidents of the _Tashnaktsutioun_, stated that “the first duty
of the Tashnakists would be to co-operate with the Union and Progress
Committee in order to maintain the Ottoman Constitution and ensure
harmony and concord between the various elements.”
The union of the committees did not last long, as they held widely
different views about the new condition of the Turkish Empire;
but soon after the _Tashnaktsutioun_, the _Huntchag_, and the
_Veragaznial-Huntchag_ committees were reorganised and new committees
formed throughout Turkey. The _Ramgavar_ (the Rights of the People)
committee was instituted in Egypt by M. Boghos Nubar after the
proclamation of the Constitution, and displayed the greatest activity.
This committee, in March, 1914, agreed to work on the same lines with
the _Huntchag_, the _Tashnaktsutioun_, and the _Veragaznial-Huntchag_.
Another committee, the _Sahmanatragan_, was also constituted. They made
sure of the support of the Patriarchate and the bishops to reassert
their influence and spread a network of ramifications all over the
country in order to triumph at the elections. They carried on an active
propaganda to conciliate public opinion, by means of all kinds of
publications, school books, almanacs, postcards, songs, and so on, all
edited at Geneva or in Russia.
As early as 1905 the Armenian committees had decided at a congress held
in Paris to resort to all means in order to make Cilicia an independent
country. Russia, on the other hand, strove hard to spread orthodoxy
in the districts round Adana, Marash, and Alexandretta, in order to
enlarge her zone of influence on this side and thus get an outlet to
the Mediterranean. At the same time, the Bishop of Adana, Mosheg, did
his best to foment the rebellion which was to break out soon after.
In this way the Armenian Christians contributed to the extension of the
Russian Empire. In 1904-05, the Nestorians asked for Russian priests
and expressed their intention to embrace the Orthodox Faith. The
Armenians of Bitlis, Diarbekir, and Kharput in 1907 handed the Russian
consul a petition bearing over 200,000 signatures, in which they asked
to become Russian subjects.
The Huntchagist leader, Sabah-Gulian, even owned in the _Augah
Hayassdan_ (Independent Armenia) newspaper that the members of the
committee had taken advantage of the Turks’ carelessness to open shops,
where rifles were being sold at half-price or even given away.
The Armenian committees took advantage of the new parliamentary
elections to stir up a new agitation. They increased their activity,
and, contrary to their engagements, corresponded with the members of
the opposition who had fled abroad.
During the Balkan war in 1913 the Tashnakist committees issued
manifestoes against the Ottoman Government and the Union party. The
Russian consuls at Erzerum and Bitlis did not conceal their sympathy,
and at Van the Russian consul threatened to the vali to ask Russian
troops to come through Azerbaïjan under the pretext of averting the
fictitious dangers the Armenians were supposed to run, and of restoring
order.
Now, whereas Russia at home unmercifully stifled all the attempts of
the Armenian committees, she encouraged and energetically supported the
agitators in Turkey. Moreover, in the report addressed by the Russian
consul at Bitlis to the Russian ambassador in Constantinople, dated
December 24, 1912, and bearing number 63, the Russian Government was
informed that the aim of the Tashnakists was, as they expressly said,
“to bring the Russians here,” and that, in order “to reach this end,
the Tashnakists are resorting to various means, and doing their best to
bring about collisions between Armenians and Moslems, especially with
Ottoman troops.” In support of this statement he mentioned a few facts
that leave no doubt about its veracity.
This report contained the following lines, which throw considerable
light on the Allies’ policy:
“Your Excellency will understand that the future collisions between
Armenians and Moslems will partly depend on the line of conduct
and activity of the _Tashnaktsutioun_ committee, on the turn
taken by the peace negotiations between Turkey and the Slavonic
States of the Balkans, and on the eventuality of an occupation of
Constantinople by the Allies. If the deliberations of the London
Conference did not bring about peace, the coming downfall of the
Ottoman capital would certainly influence the relations between
Moslems and Armenians at Bitlis.
“Both in towns and in the country the Armenians, together with
their religions leaders, have always displayed much inclination
and affection for Russia, and have repeatedly declared the Turkish
Government is unable to maintain order, justice, and prosperity
in their country. Many Armenians have already promised to offer
the Russian soldiers their churches to be converted into orthodox
places of worship.
“The present condition of the Balkans, the victory of the Slav and
Hellenic Governments over Turkey, have delighted the Armenians and
filled their hearts with the cheerful hope of being freed from
Turkey.”
Of course, the coming to Bitlis of a mixed Commission of Armenians and
Turks under the presidency of an Englishman, in order to carry out
reforms in the Turkish provinces near the Caucasus, did not please
the Armenians and Russians who had sacrificed many soldiers to get
possession of these regions.
Taking advantage of the difficulties experienced by the Ottoman
Government after the Balkan war, the committees agreed together to
raise anew the question of “reforms in the Eastern provinces.” A
special commission, presided over by M. Boghos Nubar, was sent by
the Catholicos of Etchmiadzin to the European Governments to uphold
the Armenian claims. At the same time a campaign was started by the
Armenian newspapers of Europe, Constantinople, and America, especially
by the _Agadamard_, the organ of the _Tashnaktsutioun_ committee, which
had no scruple in slandering the Turks and announcing sham outrages.
In 1913 Russia proposed a scheme of reforms to be instituted in
Armenia. It was communicated by M. de Giers to the Six Ambassadors’
Conference, which appointed a commission to report on it. As the German
and Austrian representatives raised objections to the Russian scheme
before that Commission of Armenian Reforms, which met from June 20 to
July 3, 1913, at the Austrian embassy at Yeni Keui, Russia, after this
defeat, strove to bring over Germany to her views.
In September, 1913, M. de Giers and M. de Wangenheim came to terms
on a programme to which the Porte opposed a counter-proposal. Yet
the Russian representatives succeeded in concluding a Russo-Turkish
agreement, January 26 to February 8, 1914.
When the scheme of reforms was outlined, and the powers and
jurisdiction of the inspectors and their staff were settled, the
Catholicos sent a telegram of congratulation to M. Borghos Nubar and
the latter sent another to M. Sazonov, for the Armenian committees
considered the arrangement as a first step towards autonomy. Encouraged
by this first success, the committees exerted themselves more and more.
The _Tashnaksutioun_ transferred its seat to Erzerum, where it held a
congress. The _Huntchag_ committee sent to Russia and Caucasus several
of its most influential members to raise funds in order to foment
a rising to attack the Union and Progress party especially, and to
overthrow the Government. Such was the state of things when war broke
out.
The Patriarch, who passed himself off as representing the Armenian
people, gathered together under his presidency the leaders of
the _Tashnaktsutioun_, the _Huntchag_, the _Ramgavar_, and the
_Veragaznial-Huntchag_, and the members of the National Assembly who
were affiliated to these committees to decide what attitude they were
to take in case the Ottoman Government should enter into the war. No
decision was taken, the Huntchagists declining to commit themselves and
the Tasknakists stating they preferred waiting to see how things would
turn out. Yet these committees carried on their activities separately,
and sent instructions to the provinces that, if the Russians advanced,
all means should be resorted to in order to impede the retreat of the
Ottoman troops and hold up their supplies, and if, on the contrary,
the Ottoman army advanced, the Armenian soldiers should leave their
regiments, form themselves into groups, and go over to the Russians.
The committees availed themselves of the difficulties of the Ottoman
Government, which had recently come out of a disastrous war and had
just entered into a new conflict, to bring about risings at Zeitun,
in the sandjaks of Marash and Cesarea, and chiefly in the vilayet of
Van, at Bitlis, Talori, and Mush in the vilayet of Bitlis, and in the
vilayet of Erzerum.
In the sandjaks of Erzerum and Bayazid, as soon as the decree of
mobilisation was issued, most of the Armenian soldiers went over to the
Russians, were equipped and armed anew by them, and then sent against
the Turks. The same thing occurred at Erzindjan, where three-fourths of
the Armenians crossed the Russian frontier.
The Armenians of the vilayet of Mamouret’ ul Azig (Kharput), where
the Mussulmans were also attacked and where depots of arms had been
concealed, provided with numerous recruits the regiments dispatched
by Russia to Van and the Persian frontier. Many emissaries had been
sent from Russia and Constantinople to Dersim and its area to raise
the Kurds against the Ottoman Government. So it was in the vilayet of
Diarbekir, though the Armenians were in a minority. Depots of arms of
all descriptions were discovered there, together with many refractory
soldiers.
In the Karahissar area, where several revolutionary movements had
broken out during and after the Balkan war, the Armenians refused to
obey the decree of mobilisation and were only waiting for the coming of
the Russians to rebel.
Similar incidents—such as mutinous soldiers, attacks against the Turks,
threats to families of mobilised Ottomans—occurred in the vilayet of
Angora.
In the vilayet of Van, when the Russians, reinforced by Armenian
volunteers, started an offensive, some Armenian peasants gathered
together and prepared to attack the Ottoman officials and the
gendarmerie. At the beginning of 1915 rebellions took place at Kevash,
Shatak, Havassour, and Timar, and spread in the kazas of Arjitch and
Adeljivaz. At Van over five thousand rebels, seven hundred of whom
attacked the fortress, blew up the military and Government buildings,
the Ottoman Bank, the offices of the Public Debt, the excise office,
the post and telegraph offices, and set fire to the Moslem quarter.
When this insurrection subsided about the end of April, numerous
Armenian bands, led by Russian officers, attempted to cross the Russian
and Persian frontiers.
After the capture of Van, the Armenians gave a great dinner in
honour of General Nicolaiev, commander-in-chief of the Russian army
in Caucasus, who made a speech in which he said: “Since 1826,
the Russians have always striven to free Armenia, but political
circumstances have always prevented their success. Now, as the grouping
of nations has been quite altered, we may hope Armenians will soon
be free.” Aram Manoukian, known as Aram Pasha, soon after appointed
provisional Governor of Van by General Nicolaiev, replied: “When we
rose a month ago, we expected the Russians would come. At a certain
moment, our situation was dreadful. We had to choose between surrender
and death. We chose death, but when we no longer expected your help, it
has suddenly arrived.”[36]
The Armenian bands even compelled the Ottoman Government to call back
troops from the front to suppress their revolutionary manœuvres in
the vilayet of Brusa and the neighbourhood. At Adana, as in the other
provinces, all sorts of insurrectionary movements were smouldering.
Under such circumstances, the Turkish Government tried to crush these
revolutionary efforts by military expeditions, and the repression
was merciless. A decree of the Government about changes of residence
of the Armenian populations included measures for the deportation of
Armenians. As the Turks are generally so listless, and as similar
methods had been resorted to by the Germans on the Western front, these
measures may have been suggested to the Turks by the Germans.
Tahsin Pasha, Governor of Van, was replaced by Jevdet Bey, Enver’s
brother-in-law, and Khalil Pasha, another relation of Enver, had
command of the Turkish troops in the Urmia area. Talaat sent Mustafa
Khalil, his brother-in-law, to Bitlis.
The revolutionary manœuvres of the Armenians and the repressive
measures of the Turks, with their mutual repercussions, could not but
quicken the old feuds; so the outcome was a wretched one for both
parties.
One cannot wonder that under such conditions continuous conflicts arose
between the two elements of the population, that reprisals followed
reprisals on either side, first after the Turco-Russian war, again
after the events of 1895-96, then in the course of the Adana conflict,
during the Balkan war, and finally during the late war. But it is
impossible to trust the information according to which the number of
the Armenians slaughtered by the Turks rose to over 800,000 and in
which no mention is made of any Turks massacred by the Armenians. These
figures are obviously exaggerated,[37] since the Armenian population,
which only numbered about 2,300,000 souls before the war throughout
the Turkish Empire, did not exceed 1,300,000 in the eastern provinces,
and the Armenians now declare they are still numerous enough to make
up a State. According to Armenian estimates there were about 4,160,000
Armenians in all in 1914—viz., 2,380,000 in the Ottoman Empire,
1,500,000 in Russia, 64,000 in the provinces of the Persian Shah
and in foreign colonies, and about 8,000 in Cyprus, the isles of the
Archipelago, Greece, Italy, and Western Europe.
The best answer to the eager and ever-recurring complaints made by the
Armenians or at their instigation is to refer the reader to a report
entitled “Statistics of the Bitlis and Van Provinces” drawn up by
General Mayewsky, who was Russian consul first at Erzerum for six years
and later on at Van, and in this capacity represented a Power that had
always showed much hostility to Turkey. It was said in it:
“All the statements of the publicists, which represent the Kurds as
doing their best to exterminate the Armenians, must be altogether
rejected. If they were reliable, no individual belonging to an
alien race could have ever lived in the midst of the Kurds, and
the various peoples living among them would have been obliged to
emigrate bodily for want of bread, or to become their slaves.
Now nothing of the kind has occurred. On the contrary, all those
who know the eastern provinces state that in those countries the
Christian villages are at any rate more prosperous than those of
the Kurds. If the Kurds were only murderers and thieves, as is
often said in Europe, the prosperous state of the Armenians till
1895 would have been utterly impossible. So the distress of the
Armenians in Turkey till 1895 is a mere legend. The condition of
the Turkish Armenians was no worse than that of the Armenians
living in other countries.
“The complaints according to which the condition of the Armenians
in Turkey is represented as unbearable do not refer to the
inhabitants of the towns, for the latter have always been free and
enjoyed privileges in every respect. As to the peasants, owing to
their perfect knowledge of farmwork and irrigation, their condition
was far superior to that of the peasants in Central Russia.
“As to the Armenian clergy, they make no attempt to teach religion;
but they have striven hard to spread national ideas. Within the
precincts of mysterious convents, the teaching of hatred of
the Turk has replaced devotional observances. The schools and
seminaries eagerly second the religious leaders.”
After the collapse of Russia, the Armenians, Georgians, and Tatars
formed a Transcaucasian Republic which was to be short-lived, and we
have dealt in another book with the attempt made by these three States
together to safeguard their independence.[38]
The Soviet Government issued a decree on January 13, 1918, stipulating
in Article 1 “the evacuation of Armenia by the Russian troops, and the
immediate organisation of an Armenian militia in order to safeguard the
personal and material security of the inhabitants of Turkish Armenia,”
and in Article 4, “the establishment of a provisional Armenian
Government in Turkish Armenia consisting of delegates of the Armenian
people elected according to democratic principles,” which obviously
could not satisfy the Armenians.
Two months after the promulgation of this decree, the Brest-Litovsk
treaty in March, 1918, stipulated in Article 4 that “Russia shall do
her utmost to ensure the quick evacuation of the eastern provinces of
Anatolia. Ardahan, Kars, and Batum shall be evacuated at once by the
Russian troops.”
The Armenians were the more dissatisfied and anxious after these events
as they had not concealed their hostile feelings against the Turks
and their satisfaction no longer to be under their dominion; they now
dreaded the return of the Turks, who would at least make an effort to
recover the provinces they had lost in 1878.
In April of the same year fighting was resumed, and Trebizond,
Erzinjan, Erzerum, Mush, and Van were recaptured by the Turks.
After the negotiations between the Georgians and the Turks, and the
arrangements that supervened, the Armenians constituted a Republic in
the neighbourhood of Erivan and Lake Sevanga (Gokcha).
* * * * *
After the discussion of the Armenian question at the Peace Conference
and a long exchange of views, Mr. Wilson, in August, 1919, sending
a note direct to the Ottoman Government, called upon it to prevent
any further massacre of Armenians and warned it that, should the
Constantinople Government be unable to do so, he would cancel the
twelfth of his Fourteen Points demanding “that the present Ottoman
Empire should be assured of entire sovereignty”—which, by the by, is
in contradiction with other points of the same message to Congress,
especially the famous right of self-determination of nations, which he
wished carried out unreservedly.
The Armenians did not give up the tactics that had roused Turkish
animosity and had even exasperated it, for at the end of August they
prepared to address a new note to the Allied High Commissioners
in Constantinople to draw their attention to the condition of the
Christian element in Anatolia and the dangers the Armenians of the
Republic of Erivan were beginning to run. Mgr. Zaven, Armenian
Patriarch, summed up this note in a statement published by _Le Temps_,
August 31, 1919.
Mr. Gerard, former ambassador of the United States at Berlin, in a
telegram[39] addressed to Mr. Balfour on February 15, 1920, asserted
that treaties for the partition of Armenia had been concluded during
Mr. Balfour’s tenure of the post of Secretary for Foreign Affairs
and at a time when the Allied leaders and statesmen had adopted the
principle of self-determination of peoples as their principal war-cry.
He expressed distress over news that the Allies might cut up Armenia,
and said that 20,000 ministers, 85 bishops, 250 college and university
presidents, and 40 governors, who had “expressed themselves in favour
of unified Armenia, will be asked to join in condemnation of decimation
of Armenia.” He added that Americans had given £6,000,000 for Armenian
relief, and that another £6,000,000 had been asked for. Americans were
desirous of aiding Armenia during her formative period. “Ten members of
our committee, including Mr. Hughes and Mr. Root, and with the approval
of Senator Lodge, had telegraphed to the President that America should
aid Armenia. We are earnestly anxious that Britain should seriously
consider American opinion on the Armenian case. Can you not postpone
consideration of the Turkish question until after ratification of the
treaty by the Senate, which is likely to take place before March?”
Mr. Balfour, in his reply dispatched on February 24, said:
“In reply to your telegram of February 16, I should observe that
the first paragraph seems written under a misapprehension. I
concluded no treaties about Armenia at all.
“I do not understand why Great Britain will be held responsible
by 20,000 ministers of religion, 85 bishops, 250 university
professors, and 40 governors if a Greater Armenia is not forthwith
created, including Russian Armenia on the north and stretching to
the Mediterranean on the south.
“Permit me to remind you of the facts.
“1. Great Britain has no interests in Armenia except those based
on humanitarian grounds. In this respect her position is precisely
that of the United States.
“2. I have always urged whenever I had an opportunity that the
United States should take its share in the burden of improving
conditions in the pre-war territories of the Turkish Empire and
in particular that it should become the mandatory in Armenia.
Events over which Great Britain had no control have prevented this
consummation and have delayed, with most unhappy results, the
settlement of the Turkish peace.
“3. There appears to be great misconception as to the condition of
affairs in Armenia. You make appeal in your first sentence to the
principle of self-determination. If this is taken in its ordinary
meaning as referring to the wishes of the majority actually
inhabiting a district, it must be remembered that in vast regions
of Greater Armenia the inhabitants are overwhelmingly Mussulman,
and if allowed to vote would certainly vote against the Armenians.
“I do not think this conclusive; but it must not be forgotten.
Whoever undertakes, in your own words, to aid Armenia during her
formative period must, I fear, be prepared to use military force.
Great Britain finds the utmost difficulty in carrying out the
responsibilities she has already undertaken. She cannot add Armenia
to their number. America with her vast population and undiminished
resources, and no fresh responsibilities thrown upon her by the
war, is much more fortunately situated. She has shown herself most
generous towards these much oppressed people; but I greatly fear
that even the most lavish charity, unsupported by political and
military assistance, will prove quite insufficient to deal with the
unhappy consequences of Turkish cruelty and misrule.
“If I am right in inferring from your telegram that my attitude on
the question has been somewhat misunderstood in America, I should
be grateful if you would give publicity to this reply.”
On February 28 Mr. Gerard telegraphed to Mr. Balfour that in referring
to treaties made during Mr. Balfour’s period of office he had in mind
the Sykes-Picot compact. After saying that “Great Britain and France
could not be justified in requiring American aid to Armenia as a
condition precedent to their doing justice to Armenia,” he declared
that “Armenia’s plight since 1878 is not unrelated to a series of
arrangements, well meant, no doubt, in which Great Britain played a
directive rôle,” and he concluded in the following terms:
“Our faith in chivalry of Great Britain and France and our
deliberate conviction in ultimate inexpediency of allowing Turkish
threat to override concerted will of Western civilisation through
further sacrifice of Armenia inspire us to plead with you to
construe every disadvantage in favour of Armenia and ask you to
plan to aid her toward fulfilment of her legitimate aspirations,
meanwhile depending on us to assume our share in due time, bearing
in mind imperative necessity of continued concord that must exist
between our democracies for our respective benefit and for that of
the world.”
Soon after, Lord Curzon said in the House of Lords: “It must be owned
the Armenians during the last weeks did not behave like innocent little
lambs, as some people imagine. The fact is they have indulged in a
series of wild attacks, and proved blood-thirsty people.” _The Times_
gave an account of these atrocities on March 19.
At the beginning of February, 1920, the British Armenia Committee
of London had handed to Mr. Lloyd George a memorandum in which the
essential claims of Armenia were set forth before the Turkish problem
was definitely settled by the Allies.
In this document the Committee said they were sorry that Lord Curzon on
December 17, 1919, expressed a doubt about the possibility of the total
realisation of the Armenian scheme, according to which Armenia was
to stretch from one sea to the other, especially as the attitude of
America did not facilitate the solution of the Armenian question. After
recalling Lord Curzon’s and Mr. Lloyd George’s declarations in both the
House of Lords and the House of Commons, the British Armenia Committee
owned it was difficult, if the United States refused a mandate and
if no other mandatory could be found, to group into one nation all
the Ottoman provinces which they believed Armenia was to include; yet
they drafted a programme which, though it was a minimum one, aimed
at completely and definitely freeing these provinces from Turkish
sovereignty. It ran as follows;
“An Ottoman suzerainty, even a nominal one, would be an outrage,
as the Ottoman Government deliberately sought to exterminate the
Armenian people.
“It would be a disgrace for all nations if the bad precedents of
Eastern Rumelia, Macedonia, and Crete were followed, and if similar
expedients were resorted to, in reference to Armenia. The relations
between Armenia and the Ottoman Empire must wholly cease, and the
area thus detached must include all the former Ottoman provinces.
The Ottoman Government of Constantinople has for many years kept
up a state of enmity and civil war among the various local races,
and many facts demonstrate that when once that strange, malevolent
sovereignty is thrust aside, these provinces will succeed in living
together on friendly, equable terms.”
The British Armenia Committee asked that the Armenian territories which
were to be detached from Turkey should be immediately united into
an independent Armenian State, which would not be merely restricted
to “the quite inadequate area of the Republic of Erivan,” but would
include the former Russian districts of Erivan and Kars, the zone of
the former Ottoman territories with the towns of Van, Mush, Erzerum,
Erzinjan, etc., and a port on the Black Sea. This document proclaimed
that the Armenians now living were numerous enough “to fortify,
consolidate, and ensure the prosperity of an Armenian State within
these boundaries, without giving up the hope of extending farther.” It
went on thus:
“The economic distress now prevailing in the Erivan area is due
to the enormous number of refugees coming from the neighbouring
Ottoman provinces who are encamped there temporarily. If these
territories were included in the Armenian State, the situation
would be much better, for all these refugees would be able to
return to their homes and till their lands. With a reasonable
foreign support, the surviving manhood of the nation would suffice
to establish a National State in this territory, which includes but
one-fourth of the total Armenian State to be detached from Turkey.
In the new State, the Armenians will still be more numerous than
the other non-Armenian elements, the latter not being connected
together and having been decimated during the war like the
Armenians.”
Finally, in support of its claim, the Committee urged that the
Nationalist movement of Mustafa Kemal was a danger to England, and
showed that only Armenia could check this danger.
“For if Mustafa Kemal’s Government is not overthrown, our new
Kurdish frontier will never be at peace; the difficulties of its
defence will keep on increasing; and the effect of the disturbances
will be felt as far as India. If, on the contrary, that focus of
disturbance is replaced by a stable Armenian State, our burden will
surely be alleviated.”
Then the British Armenia Committee, summing up its chief claims, asked
for the complete separation of the Ottoman Empire from the Armenian
area, and, in default of an American mandate, the union of the Armenian
provinces of the Turkish Empire contiguous to the Republic of Erivan
with the latter Republic, together with a port on the Black Sea.
In the report which had been drawn up by the American Commission of
Inquiry sent to Armenia, with General Harboor as chairman, and which
President Wilson had transmitted to the Senate at the beginning of
April, 1920, after the latter assembly had asked twice for it, no
definite conclusion was reached as to the point whether America was to
accept or refuse a mandate for that country. The report simply declared
that in no case should the United States accept a mandate without the
agreement of France and Great Britain and the formal approbation of
Germany and Russia. It merely set forth the reasons for and against the
mandate.
It first stated that whatever Power accepts the mandate must have
under its control the whole of Anatolia, Constantinople, and
Turkey-in-Europe, and have complete control over the foreign relations
and the revenue of the Ottoman Empire.
Before coming to the reasons that tend in favour of the acceptance of
the mandate by the United States, General Harboor made an appeal to
the humanitarian feelings of the Americans and urged that it was their
interest to ensure the peace of the world. Then he declared their
acceptance would answer the wishes of the Near East, whose preference
undeniably was for America, or, should the United States refuse, for
Great Britain. He added that each Great Power, in case it could not
obtain a mandate, would want it to be given to America.
The report valued the expenditure entailed by acceptance of the mandate
at 275 million dollars far the first year, and $756,140,000 for the
first five years. After some time, the profits made by the mandatory
Power would balance the expenses, and Americans might find there a
profitable investment. But the Board of Administration of the Ottoman
Debt should be dissolved and all the commercial treaties concluded by
Turkey should be cancelled. The Turkish Imperial Debt should be unified
and a sinking fund provided. The economic conditions granted to the
mandatory Power should be liable to revision and might be cancelled.
Further, it was observed that if America refused the mandate the
international rivalries which had had full scope under Turkish dominion
would assert themselves again.
The reasons given by the American Commission against acceptance of the
mandate were that the United States had serious domestic problems to
deal with, and such an intervention in the affairs of the Old World
would weaken the standpoint they had taken on the Monroe doctrine.
The report also pointed out that the United States were in no way
responsible for the awkward situation in the East, and they could not
undertake engagements for the future—for the new Congress could not
be bound by the policy pursued by the present one. The report also
remarked that Great Britain and Russia and the other Great Powers too
had taken very little interest in those countries, though England had
enough experience and resources to control them. Finally, the report
emphasised this point—that the United States had still more imperious
obligations towards nearer foreign countries, and still more urgent
questions to settle. Besides, an army of 100,000 to 200,000 men would
be needed to maintain order in Armenia. Lastly, a considerable outlay
of money would be necessary, and the receipts would be at first very
small.
On the other hand, the British League of Nations Union asked the
English Government to give instructions to its representatives to
support the motion of the Supreme Council according to which the
protection of the independent Armenian State should be entrusted to the
League of Nations.
According to the terms of the Treaty of Peace with Turkey, President
Wilson had been asked to act as an arbiter to lay down the Armenian
frontiers on the side of the provinces of Van, Bitlis, Erzerum, and
Trebizond.
Under these circumstances the complete solution of the Armenian problem
was postponed indefinitely, and it is difficult to foresee how the
problem will ever be solved.