Dr. Sedat LAÇİNER
The Armenian diaspora in Britain is relatively small when it is compared with
those in the United States or in France. Although there is no consensus some
Armenian sources claim that the Armenian population in Britain is about
11-19.000, mostly living in London and Manchester. The recent developments
showed that the Armenian community in Britain has influenced the British
public opinion beyond their population. As will be discussed in this study,
the historical experiment about the Armenians in Britain also shows that this
is not a new trend; for instance in the 19th century the Armenians, though
their number was less than a thousand in England, could success to create an
anti-Ottoman public opinion in this country. In this framework, this study
first explores the secrets of the Armenian diaspora in Britain in affecting
(sometimes manipulating) the British public opinion and press.
Second, the author of this article believes that the Armenian and the Turkish
diasporas in Britain can play a crucial role in solving the Armenian
problem since both should be open to dialogue, and both diasporas are far away
from the problematic territories, namely the Caucasus. As a result of this
belief the article examines the possible contributions of the Armenian
diaspora in Britain to the possible solution of the Armenian question.
Finally, third aim of this study is explore the present
situation of the Armenians in the United Kingdom.
I. Armenian Community in Britain: People and Institutions
Today the Armenians mainly live in London and there is a
small Armenian community in Manchester. The Armenian population in London is
estimated about 7.000-12.000 although the figures are not reliable. The London
Armenians concentrate in the boroughs of Ealing, Hounslow, Brent and Haringey.
The first serious Armenian immigration to the UK was experienced 150 years ago
and the immigration continued in the 20th century. The Armenian immigrants are
mainly from the former Ottoman Empire territories (Syria, Lebanon, Cyprus and
Iraq), Iran and Russia. Recent arrivals have fled because of the economic,
social and political problems from the former Soviet Union republics,
The early comers are relatively wealthy people and it can be argued that now
they have no serious economic problems. The most formidable problem the
Armenian community confronted is identity crisis. The homeland cannot provide
a model for the diaspora and the Armenian identity is under the threat of the
Western culture. Moreover, because the Armenians in the United Kingdom have
come from a variety of different countries, there are different communities
within the community. An Armenian from Iraq or Lebanon, for example, might
have different cultural needs to an Armenian from the former Soviet Union or
Iran. That is why religion and the historical tragedies are used in order to
strengthen the relations among the Armenians. However, exaggeration of the
religious feelings and the historical events cause extremism and hate against
other ethnic groups. In other words, the Armenian ethnic identity is
established on the historical hatred and hostility against the other ethnic
groups notably against the Turks by this approach. As a result of this not
only the relations between the Armenians and the other ethnic groups have been
damaged, but also the Armenians themselves have suffered from the extremism.
The Armenian youth in particular has faced pressure from their parents and the
community. The elderly Armenians want to create an old - type Armenian youth,
while the young people prefer to be a ‘normal’ part of the British
society. For example, ‘instead of celebrating the traditional Armenian
Christmas on 6 January, many young Armenians prefer to celebrate Christmas on
25 December, because they do not want to be different from their peers’.
The Armenian youth organisation RBO’s ‘ideal London’ clearly shows the
social pressure on the Armenian youth:
‘A world which exists to provide the Armenian youth of London what truly
deserve. A world not polluted with daily drubbings over politics and religion.
A world, to do the things that young people do. You can even swear and kiss in
public without the fear of being judged by another... It’s time to be young
These words prove that the British Armenian youth want to be depoliticised and
to be a normal part of the British society.
Apart from the problems discussed above, the recent arrivals face the most
serious problems. Many of them have come from the former Soviet Union and
their main problems are employment, accommodation and social adaptation.
Finally, the common concern of the Armenian community is the economic and
political problems in Armenia. Some radical groups (nationalist or
revolutionary left) in particular perceive themselves as a part of the
politics in Armenia although they live in Great Britain and they are British
citizens. Surprisingly they, with the other radical groups from the other
Armenian diasporas, influence the balance of power in Armenia. As has been
witnessed in the last presidential elections, the support of the diaspora
Armenians helped to replace the moderate previous Ter Petrosian with the more
strict and radical Kocharian. It can be argued that the Armenian diaspora,
including those in Britain, increases tension and radicalism in the Armenian
In brief, the British Armenians do want to help the homeland country, but they
do not know how to do so, and as will be discussed, they damage the Armenian
national interests by deepening the hostility between the Armenian and the
Turkish people and by increasing radicalism in Armenia, although the Armenian
Republic desperately needs stability and it needs to improve its diplomatic,
political and economic relations with its biggest neighbour, namely Turkey.
Organisations in Britain
Social and Education Organisations: The British Armenians have three one-day schools in
Eastern and Western Armenian languages. The Tantanian Sunday School was one of the first
examples. In the 1980s, the Armenian Saturday Language and Studies School was established.
Later the Martiza Soghnalian Armenian School was began in Kensington, London. The Armenian
Community Playgroup was founded in May 1987. The Ealing Council, the Centre for Armenian
Information and Advice (CAIA) and the London Armenian community have financially supported
the organisation. The CAIA also runs the Armenian Community Pre-School Group, which was
established in 1987. The school provides Armenian language courses four days a week.
The London Armenians also have their own cultural – religious societies, youth groups,
senior citizen club and ladies committees.
The Armenian Community Centre: Opened on 27 November 1988 at West End Road, Middlesex.
Sport facilities are impressive.
The Centre For Armenian Information and Advice (CAIA): In Acton, West London. It was
formally opened in 1986. The CAIA was funded by the London Borough Grants Scheme. It has
set up an Armenian playgroup, Armenian language classes for adults and children. It is
compiling a telephone directory of Armenians in the Britain. The Centre started Hayashen
Community Centre project in 1994. Now it aims to establish an Armenian – English Library
in London. The Armenian broadcasts from Armenia can be watched in the centre.
Homenetmen London: London branch of Homenetmen international organisation. Founded in
1979. Organises social and sportive events. Furthermore it organises political events with
other organisations like its sister organisations HOM and Hamazgayeen.
RBO: Founded in 1995 by two Armenian young people. Aims to unite all Armenian youth in
London. They further want more freedom for and less social and religious pressure on the
London Armenian youth. RBO organises parties and concerts. They have organised about 20
‘HOKIS events’, with an average attendance of over 100 youth.
The Branches of the International Armenian Organisations In Britain: Some European,
American and Canadian Armenian organisations and political parties also have branches in
London because the capital is one of the important, if not the most, political lobbying
centres in the world. Some of these organisations work under subsidiary organisations to
curtain their real names and aims. It is unfortunate that most of these organisations are
political and extremist. They focus on the Armenian question and Turkish-Armenian
relations rather than concentrating on the Armenian diaspora’s social, economic and
cultural problems. Another effect of these organisations is that they politicise the
diaspora. They speak before the British public and media in the name of the British
Armenians though their representative power is quite low.
Churches: There are two important Armenian churches in Britain: St. Sarkis Armenian
Apostolic Church (Kensington, London) and Holy Trinity Armenian Apostolic Church
(Manchester). Both serves as a cultural, social and religious centres.
Other Organisations: Some of the other important Armenian organisations in Britain can be
listed as follow;
- ACPG, Armenian Community Pre-School Group.
- Aid Armenia, Land and Culture Organisation
- Anahit Association, London.
- The Armenian National Committee.
- Armenian Rainbow Coalition (London)
- The Armenian Relief Society of Great Britain (ARS).
- The Armenian Revolutionary Federation UK (The radical political group’s UK branch).
- Armenian Rights Group.
- Barbara Melinski Fund.
- The British Armenian Community.
- Church Council.
- Committee for the Recognition of the Armenian Genocide (CRAG)
- Hayashen Armenian Youth Club.
- Hayastan All-Armenian Fund (Manchester).
- K. Tahta Armenian Community Sunday School.
- Manoukian Charitable Foundation.
- Organisation for the Preservation of Armenian Schools and Churches in India (London).
- Social Democratic Hunchag Party
- Tekeyan Cultural Association, London.
- Tekeyan Trust.
Press: The Tekeyan Cultural Association publishes Erobouni, a bi-weekly Armenian –
English newspaper. Gotchnag is another Armenin publication. It is published by the Nor
Seround Cultural association affiliated with the radical Hinchak Party.
Aregak (1964-1966) and The London Monthly (1974-1976) were two good examples for the
Armenian press in the United Kingdom. Another radical publication was Kaytzer (1978-1988)
published by the London Branch of the Union of Armenian Students. Kaytzer defended armed
struggle and terrorist methods against the Turkish diplomats to realise its political
aims, and in order to get popular support it tried to terrorise the Armenian community in
the country. For Kaytzer the Armenians had to support all illegal Turkish, Kurdish or
Armenian groups against the Turkish state.
The Centre For Armenian Information now publishes Armenian Voice quarterly. The Centre
delivers the magazine free of charge. Its circulation is about 3.000 copies.
Armenians in Britain
Manchester and North West 3000-5000
London and the South 7000-12.000
Other regions 1000-2000 (?)
Source: Armenian Voice; Exile; The Institute for Armenian Research.
It is known that there were some Armenians in the British Isles as early as the 7th
century though they were less than ten people. These people were a small part of the
immigrants from Caucasia who escaped from the Mongol attacks. The first political
contacts between the Armenians and English experienced during the Crusades. In these
wars, the Cilician Armenians openly supported the occupying Christians against the
local Muslims and the other peoples of the region. The letters exchanged between
King Henry III and the Armenian King Hetoum, who called for assistance when the
Crusaders were passing through Cilicia, proves this co-operation. It is also
noted that the Armenian King Leo IV and King Richard Lion-Heart met in 1191 in
Cyprus and this co-operation continued in the following years.
According to the British Orthodox Church, the first Armenian Bishop came to Britain
in 1250 after the Tartar invasion. Though we do not have reliable evidence, it
is also claimed that many Armenians settled in the Southern England, near Plymouth
during the time of Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658). The similarity between ‘Armenian’
and ‘Arminian’ raised doubt whether these people were Armenian or not. According
to the story Cromwell was passing through the Armenian quarter and his interest were
raised by the people who lived there and called themselves ‘Armenians’. He asked
the head whether they were Royalist or Nationalist. The head replied they obeyed the
law of land, and the answer annoyed Cromwell, and these people had to leave all
their houses and returned to Amsterdam, the Netherlands where they had come
from. In brief, it is difficult to speak of a serious Armenian existence in
Britain before the 17th century. In the 17th century, the Armenian traders became
important in trade between East and West. These traders were Christian and spoke
Eastern languages, like Turkish, Arabic, Persian and Indian, all were great
advantage to them in the East-West trade. Many Armenian traders established an
extensive network of commercial contacts in Britain, Iran and India. As a result of
these economic relations, many Armenians visited England, and some settled there.
Yet, their number was still tiny and they were far away from forming a significant
community in Britain. The Armenians in India were crucial to English, because the
English were trying to colonise India, and the Armenians were one of the Christian
minorities of India who were very desirous to help the English against the Indians.
Apart from the political co-operation, the Armenian merchants had come India before
the English and they had trade bases in Calcutta, India. During the 17th century the
Armenian merchants became one of the dominant traders in the route of Calcutta -
Middle East - Italy and Manchester. As a result of their service to Britain the
famous Armenian merchants were granted the status of Free Citizens of England in
1688 by a Royal Charter.
The next major Armenian settlers came from the Ottoman territories as the Armenians
dominated trade between the British and Ottoman Empires with the Greeks. They were
mainly from İstanbul, İzmir and Selanik. The majority of them settled in
London, Manchester and Liverpool. The Armenian merchants imported tobacco and food
to Britain while they exported silk, natural fibres, textile products and metals to
the Ottoman Empire. Other Armenians followed them after 1830. Yet the Armenian
population was still very small. In Manchester, for instance, the number of the
Armenian settlers reached only to 30 in 1860.
Diaspora and Its Impact on British-Ottoman Relations
The Armenian population increased in the second half of the XIXth century. Most of the new
comers were Ottoman Armenian traders and some rebels from the Ottoman territories, and
their immigration dramatically changed the Armenians’ position in the relations between
the British and Turkish. Henceforth the Armenian refugees made extreme efforts to
manipulate the British public opinion against the Ottomans. Though their number was small,
the Armenian community was influential over the British public and the governmental
institutions compared with the other minority groups and the Ottomans. First reason for
this was the religion shared with the British society, namely Christianity. For instance,
despite its small number, the Manchester Armenian community had established their own
church and used it to forge its relations with the British people. It is a well-known
fact that a church for Armenians is more than a place of worship, it is a social club or,
political, cultural even economic focal point. So the Armenian church in the 19th century
became one of the most important tool of the Armenian propaganda in Britain. The church
organised the anti-Ottoman campaigns in the country, sent letters to the international
bodies protesting the situation in the Ottoman Empire and made lobby against the Turks.
The church perceived the Armenian riot in the Ottoman Empire as a religious war, and
accused the Muslims for all the problems between the ethnic groups. Patriarch Nersess
Varjapetian’s and Catholicos Khriminian Hairik’s efforts were significant in this
campaign. The religious solidarity made Armenian propaganda more effective, and each
church was used as an information centre by the Armenian nationalists in manipulating the
public opinion. Moreover the church collected aid for the rebellious Armenians and the
Armenian bands in Eastern Anatolia and the Caucasus. The Armenian church also tried to
protect the national identity of the Armenians in Britain. The Manchester Armenian Church
for example, published Yercraground periodical (1860s).
Apart from the religious groups the Armenians formed some political parties such as the
Hunchakian Revolutionary Party (HRP, 1887) and Revolutionary Federation (RF, 1890), both
were sister organisations of the armed Armenian terror bands in Caucasia and the Ottoman
Empire. These organisations had been declared ‘terrorist’ and ‘illegal’ by the
Ottoman Empire. Yet the British government allowed them to continue their activities. The
HRP and the RF organised aid campaigns, as well as collected money for arming the Armenian
rebels in the Ottoman territory. In addition to the HRP and the RF, Hinchak (1894,
1901-1903), Aptak (1894-1897), Mart (1897) were also very active in Britain. All had
connections with the armed terror groups in the Ottoman Empire. Most of them like Hamaink
(1894) had newspaper or magazines, which created a pro-Armenian public opinion in Britain.
As a result of the Armenian propaganda, the British public perceived the Armenian riots
and massacres as despotic policies of the Ottoman government. Thanks to propaganda and the
religious solidarity, various societies were founded in Britain, like Anglo-Armenian
Association (1893), the Information Bureau (1896), Armenian Patriotic Association (1888),
Friends of Armenia (1897), Armenian United Association of London (1898). The latter
published its own periodical called Ararat. These organisations had good relations with
the British press and the bureaucracy. Also, the prestigious members increased the Armenin
lobbies’ influence on the parliament. The ‘influential friends’ took the problem
into the British parliament and prime minister. Prime Minister Gladstone, for instance,
was informed by mainly the Armenian sources on the Armenian issue. As a result, he accused
the Turks of massacring the Ottoman Armenians. In particular during the Berlin
Congress of 1878 the Armenian propaganda in London reached its peak. The Armenians saw the
congress as an opportunity against the Ottomans, and the number and the intensity of
Armenian publications, demonstrations in London dramatically increased in 1878. Before the
Congress was held, Catholicos Khrimian Hairik visited Britain and met the leaders of the
Armenian diaspora in Manchester and London. He advised the Armenians to spread the
Armenian cause among the British people. Hairik also met PM Gladstone and other important
figures in Britain, like Lord Canarvil, Lord Shaftsbury, the Duke of Westminster and the
Archbishop of Canterbury. Hairik, in each of his meetings, argued that the United Kingdom
ought to support the Armenian separatist movement in the Ottoman territory. Despite all
these efforts, the outcome of the Congress left the Armenians disappointed. For the
Catholicos, the result was a disaster for the Armenians. He then sent representatives to
the European capitals including London. The British Foreign Minister was reluctant to meet
them, yet the Hairik’s delegation could meet the Archbishop of Canterbury and the chief
editor of The Times. The London Armenians helped them in their contacts with the
British bureaucrats and press. However as Taverdi put it, the Armenian argument they
presented was contradictory:
‘For example the delegates requested that in all towns where Armenians lived there
should be British representatives. The Archbishop asked which towns did not have a British
representative. The reply was “Moush”. “Moush being a provincial town has always had
a British Council”, the Archbishop replied!’
The Armenian delegation’s real aim was to persuade the British to support them in their
separatist struggle against the Ottoman Empire. However they were using a different
rhetoric in the negotiations. They claimed that the Turks were massacring the civilians
and abusing basic human rights though the real picture was completely different at that
time. The Ottoman Armenians were one of the most prosperous Ottoman minorities and, thanks
to the millet system they enjoyed the generous Ottoman religious tolerance. In addition,
the increasing role of the American and the British traders in the Ottoman economy had
made the Ottoman Armenian merchants richer since the Western merchants preferred the
Armenians and Greeks as their trading partners. In short, the Armenian delegate tried
to curtain their nationalist aims yet they could not convince the British authorities
until the First World War. In the war, the Ottomans and the British fought against each
other. Under the war circumstances the British propaganda focused on the Christian
minorities in the Ottoman Empire. The American historian Prof. Justin McCarthy argues that
the British propaganda machine accused the Germans and Turks of violating human rights in
order to attract the American interest into the war. Because the American press and
public opinion heavily depended on the British media and missionary schools, the British
propaganda created an anti-Ottoman public opinion in the United States. In this campaign,
the British Armenians played a crucial role.
During the First World War the armed nationalist Ottoman Armenian bands rioted and
slaughtered a considerable number of Muslims in order to establish an independent Armenia.
The radical Armenian attacks caused counter-attacks and the intercommunal clashes claimed
many lives. When the Armenian bands helped the occupying Russian forces, and posed a
threat to the security of the Ottoman army the Ottoman government decided to re-locate the
Armenians from the sensitive regions into more safe areas. Unfortunately, many
Armenians died during this relocation due to the band attacks, climatic conditions and
diseases. When considering the war circumstances such deaths were understandable; In the
Caucasian front for example about 90.000 Turkish soldiers died because of the cold in a
couple of days. That is to say the Ottoman State had not enough equipment to prevent the
massive mortalities under the war’s catastrophic conditions. However all undesired
tragedies the Armenians and the Muslims faced were presented as an Armenian massacre in
Britain by the Armenian groups and the British religious groups.
When the Republic of Armenia in Caucasus declared its independence on 29 May 1918, it was
represented in London as an independent state by the Armenian National Bureau. The Bureau
published information booklets, organised discussion sessions and meetings related to the
Armenian question, problems of Armenia and the Armenian diaspora. Its efforts focused on
two important cities; London and Manchester. The bureau’s manipulative impact over the
press was clear. In other words, the bureau helped to shape the anti-Ottoman feelings
regarding the Ottoman-Armenian relations in Britain.
After the First World
After the First World War the Armenian population in London was less than 1.000
people. The Armenian Church in London was not only a religious centre but a
cultural, social and political one. That was the reason to start a campaign to
construct a permanent church building in London in the economic depression years of
the 1920s. 5000 pounds were collected in this campaign. When Caloust Gulbenkian from
France contributed to the campaign with a 15.000 pounds, an Armenian Church in the
traditional Armenian style in London became feasible. Thus, St. Sarkis Church was
constructed in Kensington, one of the prestigious districts of the capital in 1923.
However, the official opening ceremony would not be possible until 11 January 1932.
At the end of the 1920s, the Armenian population in London reached more than 1.000.
Some of the new comers were from the former Ottoman territories.
| World War II and Aftermath
The catastrophic effects of the war forced some Armenian families to immigrate into
the Great Britain. Most of the Armenian immigrants were from Lebanon, Cyprus and
Syria where they were under the propaganda of the extreme terrorist groups. In
Lebanon and Cyprus in particular ASALA and other terrorist groups had politicised
the Armenian community against the Turks. Moreover some of the new comers had come
to Syria and Lebanon from the Ottoman territories after the First World War.
Therefore, most of them had strong biases about the Turks and perceived Turkey as
the successor of the Ottoman Empire, the ultimate enemy to the radical Armenian
As a result of the immigration from the Middle Eastern countries, the Armenian
population dramatically increased in Britain during the 1950s. The British
Armenians, furthermore, gained an influential position in the British society.
Another important development during the 1950s was the launch of the Armenian Centre
campaign. The London Armenian Community Trust was founded in 1961 in London. The aim
was to establish the Armenian House in Kensington, London. When the construction was
finished the Armenian House in 25 Chenniston Gardens, Kensington became the social
and cultural centre of the Armenians in Britain. The House organised campaigns and
set up a 1500-book library, holding Armenian and English collections. The Armenian
population at that time was about 5.000 people. The number was so little compared
with the other minorities, yet their political influence over the British, public
opinion, press and government was impressive.
First time in history, the British Armenians elected representatives for the London
Armenian society and the Church Council on 12 June 1965. The first task of the new
representatives was to lease the All Saint Church in Finchley in order to meet the
increasing social, cultural and religious needs of the growing community. The church
was demolished at the expire date of the lease in 1973, and the St. Peters in
Cranley Gardens was let instead of the previous church.
The Armenian population in Britain continued to increase during the 1960s and 70s.
One of the reasons for that was the ethnic conflict between the Greek and Turkish
Cypriots in Cyprus. When the Greek Cypriots started an armed struggle against
Britain and massacred thousands of the Turkish Cypriots in order to annex the island
to Greece, the Armenian civilians were also affected by the conflict although they
had relatively good relations with Greeks. Most of the Armenian Cypriots again came
to the United Kingdom, former colonist power in Cyprus. Thus the Armenian population
in Britain reached 10.000 in a short period of time. Another factor was the Lebanese
conflict in the 1970s. Both the Lebanese and Cypriot Armenians were also Ottoman
Armenians in origin and they were biased about the Turks. These Armenians became the
leading Armenian group in the political arena and made great efforts to keep the
Armenian problem on the British agenda. The radical Armenians’ main aim was to
persuade the British politicians about the so-called Armenian genocide and to end
the friendly Turkish-British relations. Thus, the anti Turkish groups in the UK
became much more stronger with the new comers. In 1979 some Iranian Armenians
came to the UK as a result of the political turmoil in Iran, namely the Iranian
The Armenian Terror and the Armenian Immigrants in Britain
As has been seen above, Britain has been one of the most important Armenian lobbying
centres in the Armenian question. The Armenians, until the First World War, had formed
many political lobbying groups against the Ottoman Empire in order to establish an
independent Armenia on the Ottoman territories. The Friends of Armenia (1897) and Anglo
– Armenian Association (1893) were two most influential lobbying groups in Britain,
which worked in favour of the Armenian argument. Although the Ottoman Armenians’ armed
riot had ended with a tragedy and cost thousands of Turkish and Armenian life, the radical
and nationalist Armenians continued their anti-Turkish campaign in Britain, even after the
declaration of independent Armenian Republic. In fact, the existence of the Armenian
community in this country provides a great opportunity to put an end to the hostility
between the Turks and the Armenians, because both Armenians and British Turkish people
were living in Turkey’s one of the most important military and political allies, the
United Kingdom. Unfortunately the Armenian radicals politicised the Armenian schools and
the cultural, religious and social activities. Furthermore the terror groups did not allow
the Armenians to use this opportunity to end the communal hatred. All these activities
naturally politicised the Armenian society in London; Some Armenian Sunday schools even
taught the school boy anti - Turkish feelings and the children hated the Turkish people
though they had never met a Turkish in their life. Thus anti-Turkish feelings became an
inseparable part of the Armenian identity. Despite this picture, the Armenians in Britain
had not taken part in the terror activities before the 1970s. The most significant anti -
Turkish Armenian political activity was the 1969 demonstration where the Armenians
gathered in front of the Turkish Embassy and protested the Turkish government by claiming
that Turkey had to accept officially the 1915 events as a ‘genocide’. Turkey never
accepted such a view and repeated that the 1915 events were not a genocide but a civil
clash between the armed Muslims (Turkish, Kurdish etc.) and the Armenian groups, and the
Ottoman officers made extreme efforts to protect the civilian Armenian and Turkish people
from the attacks. For Turkey the demonstration was a part of the great global anti-Turkish
campaign, since the similar meetings had been organised in the USA, France, the Middle
East and other countries.
On 27 January 1973, Turkish Consul General Mehmet Baydar and Consul Bahadir Demir were
assassinated by the Armenian terrorists in Santa Barbara, the United States. After this
first assault in the United States, the Marxist - Leninist ASALA terror organisation
proclaimed itself with a bomb attack in 1975. ASALA considered Turkey and its allies,
including the United Kingdom and the United States, as an archenemy and defended the idea
that the Armenian claim can only be solved by armed struggle. ASALA further argued that
all Armenians should unite under the Soviet political system. The nationalist JCAG and
ARA also joined the Armenian terrorism against the Turkish diplomats during the 1970s. The
Armenian terrorists killed 34 Turkish diplomats in Paris (7), Athens (3), Sydney (2),
Geneva (1), Lisbon (3), Madrid (2), Belgrade (1), Brussels (1), Vienna (3), USA (3),
Geneva (1), Ottawa (1), The Hague (1), Tehran (1), Baghdad (1), Burgaz (1) and other
cities. It is interesting that the Armenian terrorists could not assassinate any
Turkish diplomat in the United Kingdom. One of the secret of this was, contrary to France’s
and Greece’s tolerant terrorism policy, the British security forces’ decisive measures
against international terrorism. As a result of the draconian measures against terrorism
the Armenian terrorists targeted some British institutions abroad. In Rome, Italy for
instance the New Armenian Resistance Commandos (NAR) militants bombed British Airways
Office on 9 December 1979. Similarly, ASALA terrorists placed bombs in the Turkish
Airlines office in London and the ASALA claimed that the attack in solidarity with the
revolutionary movements in Northern Ireland in their fight against ‘British Fascism’.
On 15 September 1983, the target was again the United Kingdom. An explosive bomb in a
suitcase was found in Holborn, London during the trial of two Armenians, Zaven Bedros and
unnamed accomplice. For the British police, the bombs had been put by ASALA.
The second reason why the Armenian terrorism was not strong in the UK was that the
Armenian diaspora in Britain was relatively weak compared with those in the United States
and France. Moreover, the majority of the British Armenians were unwilling to take part in
the terrorist activities although some gave clear support to the ASALA terror organisation.
Interestingly almost all of the Armenian associations in Britain which had supported the
Armenian terrorism were branches of the radical Armenian groups who based in France,
Greece or the US. The Kaytzer was one of the most vivid examples of this; the Kaytzer
advocated a radical anti-Turkish campaign during its publication between 1978-1988. The
magazine, during the latter period (in the 1980s), even called for an armed struggle and
unity with all armed terrorist organisations in Turkey. Though the magazine was
published in London, the publisher was the London Branch of the Union of Armenian
Students, one of the most radical Armenian groups. The identity of the arrested Armenian
terrorists in UK also prove that the Armenian radicalism in Britain have always been
external connections; Armenian terrorist Zaven Bedros, for example, who was arrested in a
hotel room in London when he was planning to take the Turkish Ambassador hostage to
exchange for an Armenian terrorist who had been captured, Levon Ekmekjian, was from Syria.
As a matter of fact, most of the Armenian terrorists were from overseas countries, like
France, Greece and Syria.
Between 1978 and 1983, seven important Armenian attacks occurred in the United Kingdom
against the Turkish targets. Some of these attacks targeted the United Kingdom as well
because the Armenian terrorists accused the British government of being fascist and
collaborating with Turkey. The Armenian terrorists also attacked two British targets
overseas. The Armenian attacks against the Turkish targets in Britain and against the
British targets can be summarized as follow:
- New Armenian Resistance Commandos (NAR) placed a bomb in a Turkish Bank in London on 1
March 1978. The bombs did not explode however. Same day the terrorists also bombed Turkish
residence of Financial Counsellor in Brussels, Belgium. The bomb was placed in the
- On 24 May 1978 JCAG and ARA Commandos placed a bomb in Turkish Airlines Office in
- The ASALA terrorists, under the leadership of Hagop Darakjian bombed a British tourist
office in Paris, France to protest the United Kingdom on 25 November 1979. Same day
another ASALA terrorist team bombed TWA, Al Italia, Sebena and British Airways offices in
Madrid, Spain in order to protest the United States of America, Italy, Belgium and the
- 17 December 1979. London. Extensive damage caused when a bomb exploded in front of the
Turkish Airlines (THY) Office in London. ASALA claimed the attack in solidarity with the
revolutionary movements in Northern Ireland in their fight against ‘British Fascism’.
This attack proved the connection between the Armenian terrorist groups and terrorism in
- The NAR attacked the British Airways Office in Rome, Italy on 9 December 1979. The
target country was the United Kingdom. Same day the ASALA terrorists bombed another place
(Iran Air Airlines) in Rome to protest Iran.
- The ASALA attacked British Airways office in Madrid, Spain on 3 October 1980. The target
country was the United Kingdom.
- The ASALA and the 3 October Group placed two bombs in Turkish Airlines Office in London
on 12 October 1980. This was one of simultaneous bombings in three cities (with Los
Angeles and New York bombings). Same day ASALA and 3 October Groups also bombed Swiss
Tourist Office in London.
- A planned Armenian terrorist attack was thwarted when Zaven Bedros from Syria was
arrested in a London hotel room on 9 September 1982 and trained later in 1983. The
terrorist said he was to take the Turkish Ambassador hostage to exchange for Levon
- An explosive bomb in suitcase was found during trial of two Armenians, Zaven Bedros and
unnamed accomplice in Holborn, London. Target was the UK and the British police said the
terrorists were from the ASALA organisations.
As mentioned, it can be said that the majority of the British Armenians did not take part
in the terrorist activities, however it is unfortunate that they did not clearly condemn
the terrorist attacks against the innocent Turkish diplomats. The Church and the cultural
organisations should have played a more constructive role in the problem, yet many
important Armenian figures implied they approved the assassinations although the Armenians
in Turkey, Turkish government and all Western governments, including the British
government, condemned the attacks.
When the Armenian terror groups could not get a significant popular Armenian support and
could not find a suitable ground for their terror attacks, they co-operated with the other
anti-Turkish radical groups, like the Turkish terror organisations in Britain, Kurdish
separatists and the Greek radicals in London. The Joint Declaration of the Armenian
Student Union and the Kurdish Student Union in London was one of the examples of this
coalition. The PKK, which has been recognized as one of the most dangerous terror
organisations in the world by the UK authorities, in particular gave great support to
the radical Armenian groups against Turkey.
As a result of Turkey’s diplomatic and political efforts, the Armenian assassinations of
the Turkish diplomats almost ended in the mid-1980s. After this date those who advocated
political lobbying before the government, parliament and the press, dominated the Armenian
community in Britain. The Armenian groups have lobbied members of the House of Commons to
introduce bills on the Armenian allegations, but these did not make any waves. They
convinced neither government nor the Parliament for their cause and the British
authorities have always declared that the 1915 events were not a ‘genocide’.
Memorial Day and the Armenian Campaign
The Armenian Campaign to include the Armenian claims into the Holocaust Memorial Day
has been one of the most important targets of the Armenian lobbying in the recent
years. As a matter of fact this was not a new method; since the 1970s, the Armenian
writers and propagandists have followed a new strategy to win greater support and
sympathy for their ‘cause.’ This strategy aims to draw parallel between the
fates of the European Jewry during the Second World War and that of the Armenians in
the Ottoman Empire during the First World War. By equating the tragedy that fell
upon the Jews in the Holocaust and the sufferings experienced by many Armenians in
an alleged ‘genocide’, the Armenian propagandists have sought to exploit the
sensitivities of many Americans and European who are deeply troubled by the horrible
events that led to the deaths of more than six million Jews in Europe at the hands
of the Nazis.’ Until now neither the Jews and Israel nor the Western states
accept such a link between the Holocaust and the Armenian incident. In spite of
this, the Armenian lobbies have never given up, and when the Armenians in France and
the United States have started a great anti-Turkish campaign in international arena,
the radical Armenian groups in Britain perceived this as an opportunity to force the
British to recognise the Armenian cause as a national policy. The first Holocaust
Memorial Day provided an invaluable opportunity for such a strategy. According
to the plans, a national ceremony to mark the first Holocaust Memorial Day in the
United Kingdom would take place in central London on the evening of 27 January 2001,
and apart from many Holocaust survivors, leading political, religious and community
figures would attend to the ceremony. The event’s aim was to ‘honour the victims
of genocide’, namely the Jewish who were murdered by the Nazi Germany during the
Second World War. But the Armenian groups claimed that the British government and
the BBC, the organiser of the event, simply have ignored the Armenians and
officially applied to join the day as ‘the victims of the Armenian genocide’. To
realise their aim, the Armenian lobbying groups organised conferences at the
universities and gatherings in the city centres and launched letter campaigns to
make an impact on the British press and the members of the Parliament.
Unfortunately, the strategy turned into an anti-Turkish campaign in a short time.
The Armenian lobby not only criticised Turkey for its Armenian policy but also
blamed for the other issues and co-operated with all the legal and the illegal
anti-Turkish groups, notably with the outlawed terrorist PKK organisation.
Furthermore, the Armenian lobbyists increased their efforts in the House of Lords as
seen on 11 December 2000 when Lord Avebury, who known to be the leading person in
all anti-Turkish lobbying in the Parliament and had good relations with the PKK,
played a crucial role in the Armenian campaign. Avebury called its government to
recognise the Armenian claims. Interestingly the PKK representatives freely
joined in all Armenian lobbying meetings including those organised in the House of
Lords halls although the PKK is an illegal terror organisation under the British
In conclusion, as has been explained the Armenian lobbies made
enormous efforts to participate in the Memorial Day, however their applications were
turned down by the British government and the Armenian groups were informed by the Home
Office that the memorial ceremonies were designed for the Holocaust only. In addition,
the Government resisted the Armenian pressure in the Parliament and called the Armenian
lobbyists for a more constructive approach; When Baroness Cox asked the Government whether
it would extend the Commemoration of the Holocaust on 27th January to include the
Armenians, Lord Bassam of Brighton replied wisely:
‘We should try to learn the lessons of history. It must be the hope of everyone that the
Governments of Turkey and Armenia have learnt the lessons of history and that they can in
some way put the matter behind them. We must ensure that we have the sort of useful
co-operation needed to increase stability and prosperity in that part of the world That
would be in everybody’s best interests.’
Not only the British but also the Jewish and Israel were not happy with the Armenian
efforts. Shimon Peres, the Israeli Foreign Minister, for instance clearly refused the
Armenian claims and said ‘Armenian allegations are meaningless… We reject attempts to
create a similarity between the Holocaust and the Armenian allegations. Nothing similar to
the Holocaust occurred.’ Turkey’s Jewish community also declared that inclusion of
other ‘so-called genocides’ in the commemoration of Holocaust Memorial Day in Britain
would be disrespectful to the Jews killed by the Nazis.
The Home Office and government refused to recognise the Armenian claims as ‘genocide’,
yet the representatives of the Armenian community were invited to join the first Holocaust
Memorial Day as a mid-way. For the Home Office, the Armenian representatives, including
the Armenian Bishop of Britain, have been invited as members of the ‘community’ and
not direct participants. Yet even this invitation was enough to make the Turks angry;
thousands of Turkish people and the Azerbaijanis living in Britain gathered to demonstrate
outside the venue and to protest the Home Office decision to include the Armenians. Not
only the 300.000 Turkish community in Britain but also the masses in Turkey protested the
decision. The Turkish people were very sensitive about the decision, for the majority the
Western governments were respecting only one of the sides’ (Armenian’s) agony and
sufferings and ignoring the pains of the other side (Turkish people’s). Moreover, Turkey
regarded the genocide accusation as harassment to the Turks. According to the Turkish
argument, ‘more than five million Ottoman Muslims had been killed by the Christian
minorities in the final period of the Ottoman State. The Armenians were also one of the
suffering peoples yet their lost was relatively small compared with the Turkish people:
The separatist armed Armenian bands rioted against the state, and the government
re-located the Armenian population from the war theatre to the less sensitive territories.
During the re-location about 50.000 Armenians lost their life as a result of the
natural disasters and the communal conflicts, although the Ottoman officers took all the
possible measures to protect the civilians. Under the light of this information, these
events cannot be presented as a genocide.’
The Home Office and the government did not include the Armenians into the Memorial Day yet
the radical Armenian groups benefited from the day; as a result of the propaganda campaign
and the Memorial Day, the radical Armenians found opportunity to manipulate the British
public opinion and the media. Thus, the press assumed all Armenian claims are true and
published biased news. Robert Fisk’s articles published in the Independent daily are
good examples for such prejudiced news. Fisk, for instance, claims that ‘Kemal Atatürk,
founder of Modern Turkey accepted that the Armenians had been persecuted by the Ottomans
while the British authorities do not accept’. It is quite difficult to understand
how such a respected and careful journalist can reach such a conclusion, because as all
the documents prove that Mustafa Kemal never accepted such claims but reverse. This
article and the similar ones show how the propaganda machine of certain circles has
recently focused on the British press. Under these circumstances it is not surprising
that none of the articles on the Armenian problem and the Holocaust day gave reference to
the Turkish sources while they heavily used the Armenian arguments.
As the Armenian lobbying groups realised they could not persuade the government to change
its official Armenian policy they increased their activities. Treasures of the Ark
Exhibition was one of these activities. It was presented as a cultural activity, yet
the political accusations against Turkey continued in the exhibition during March 2001:
The Turkish territories were presented as the ‘Armenian home’ and the so-called
Armenian genocide claim repeated.
As discussed by this paper, the Armenian diaspora in Britain is an influential
minority group in spite of their small population in this country. The influential
Armenian figures can affect the British public opinion, media and politics.
Furthermore, wealthy Armenians have the potential to finance the social and cultural
needs of the Armenian community in London. However, as the study shows the Armenian
social society organisations generally focus on the political issues instead of
concentrating on the cultural, social and economic problems of the community. Apart
from a few exceptions most of them even involve in the domestic politics of Armenia.
Their efforts have not solved the problems, but increased the tension in Armenia and
deepened the hatred between the Armenians and the other ethnic groups namely the
Turkish people. It can be argued that the diaspora factor made the problem
incurable. Second, the Armenian diaspora has wasted its time, energy and financial
sources in politicising all issues, while the Armenian youth, women, children,
elderly and poor have social, economic and cultural problems. The radical groups in
particular perceive that all problems are political, and they claim that the
solution to the community’s problems is to overcome the external enemy (Turkey).
They also defend that the Armenians in Britain must protect their religious
differences from other Christians in order to preserve the Armenian identity.
However, the religious and political extremism increase the tension and deepen the
identity crisis. As a final word this study argues that the Armenians in Britain
should follow a more constructive approach to solve their problems and to help the
homeland Armenia. Otherwise, it would not be helpful for themselves, Armenia, the
British social order and for the relations between Turkey and Armenia.
This article previously published in Armenian Studies journal, Vol. 1, No. 3,
September-October-November 2001, pp. 233-257
* Director, International Strategic Research Organization (ISRO) and IR lecturer in
Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University.
 The author would like to thank to Assist. Prof. Dr.
İbrahim Kaya for his invaluable comments on this article.
 See table 1. According to the CAIA the number is 15.000. Walker also says there
are 15.000 Armenians in London and Manchester: Christopher J. Walker (ed.), Armenia
and Karabakh, (London: Minority Rights Publications, 1991), s. 52. Philip Johnston
estimates the British Armenians as 20.000: Philip Johnston, ‘Anger Over The “Forgotten”
Massacre’, Daily Telegraph, 11 January 2001. The gap between the estimations is
huge. The main reason for that is the recent unregistered immigrations and the
unreliable official British figures about the ethnic population.
 About 300.000 Turkish live in the United Kingdom. For details see ‘Londra’daki
Türkiye ve Türk Diasporası’ (Turkey in London and the Turkish Diaspora), in
Sedat Laçiner (ed.), Bir Başka Açıdan İngiltere (Britain From a
Different Perspective), (Ankara: Asam, 2001), pp. 137-162; Talip Küçükcan, Politics
of Ethnicity, Identity and Religion: Turkish Muslims in Britain, (London: Ashgate,
1999); S. Ladbury, Turkish Cypriots in London, Economy, Society and Culture, (London:
SOAS, 1979); F. M. Bhatti, Turkish Cypriots in Britain, (Birmingham: CSIC-MR, 1981);
Salahi Sonyel, The Silent Minority, Turkish Muslim Children in British Schools,
(Cambridge: The Islamic Academy, 1988); İngiltere’de Türk Toplumu, (London:
Turkish Consulate, 2000); Sedat Laçiner, Açık Kapı Politikasından
Yabancı Düşmanlığına: İngiltere’de Göç Ve Irk
İlişkileri (The Immigration and Racial Relations in Britain), (Ankara: Asam,
 ‘The UK Armenian Community’, Exile, February 2001.
 ‘The UK Armenian Community’, Exile, February 2001.
 ‘The World of RBO Unlimited’, RBO, www.rbo.co.uk/Introduction_Home.htm.
 For more details see: www.caia.org.uk.
 HOKIS, RBO’s music group’s name.
 Michael Foss, People of the First Crusade, (London: Michael O’Mara Books, 1997),
 Karnik Taverdi, ‘A History of Armenians in Britain’, Armenian Voice, 2001.
 The Church uses The Chronicles of Matthew Paris for its claim. ‘The Chronicles
of Matthew Paris have the following entry for the year 1250: “And at the same time
certain Armenian brethren, fugitives from the Tartar invasions, arrived as pilgrims in
England. When they came to St. Ives one of them was taken ill and unfortunately died
in that town. He was reverently buried next to St. Ivo’s spring, the water of which
is said to have great virtue. These brethren were of most honest life and amazing
abstinence, being always in prayer, with rugged, honest faces and beards. The one who
died was their leader and master, George by name, and he is thought to have been a
most holy man and a bishop; he now began to perform miracles.” ‘Britain and the
Eastern Churches’, Glastonbury Review.
 For the details of the story see Taverdi, ‘A
 Taverdi, ‘A History...’.
 The Chapel at 151 Romford Street was rented as the first Armenian church in
Manchester. During Rev. Ft. Khoren Kiuroyan the Manchester Armenians decided to
construct their own church and the construction started imn 1869 on the High Street.
It was completed in 1870 at the cost of 2725 sterling.
 Andrew Wheatcroft, The Ottomans, Dissolving Images, (London: Penguin Books,
1995), p. 234-235.
 Taverdi, ‘A History…’.
 Taverdi, ‘A History…’.
 For the Ottoman Armenians’ economic, social and political situation in the
XIXth Century see Vartan Artinian, The Armenian Constitutional Sytem in the Ottoman
Empire, 1839-1863, A Study of the Historical Development, (Istanbul: 1971); Vartan
Artinian, The Armenian Constitutional System in the Ottoman Empire, 1839 - 1863, PhD
thesis, Brandeis University, 1970; Salahi R. Sonyel, Minorities and the Destruction of
the Ottoman Empire, (Ankara: TTK, 1993); Bilal N. Şimşir (ed.), British
Documents on Ottoman Armenians, (Ankara: TTK, 1989).
 Justin McCarthy, ‘I. Dünya Savaşı’nda İngiliz
Propagandası ve Bryce Raporu’ (The British Propaganda in the First World War
and the Bryce Report), in Hasan Celal Güzel (ed.), Osmanlıdan Günümüze Ermeni
Sorunu (The Armenian Question, From the Ottoman to the Present), (Ankara: Yeni
Türkiye Yayınları, 2001), pp. 21-37.
 For the details see Salahi R. Sonyel, Turkey’s Struggle for Liberation and the
Armenians, (Ankara: SAM, 2001); Türkkaya Ataöv, The ‘Armenian Question’
Conflict, Trauma & Objectivity, (Ankara: SAM, 1999); Mim Kemal Öke, The Armenian
Question, 1914-1923, (Oxford: University Printing House, 1988); Türkkaya Ataöv, The
‘Armenian Question’, (Ankara: SAM, 1999); The Armenian Issue in Nine Questions and
Answers, (Ankara: Foreign Policy Institute, 1982); Armenian Allegations, An
Assessment, (İstanbul: Foundation for Middle East and Balkan Studies, OBİV,
 Apart from the Armenians the Greeks, Greek Cypriots and the radical Turkish –
Kurdish groups were combined in the political arena in Britain.
 Some of the Turkish experts claim that the responsible for these events was the
communist Soviet Union. The USSR’s ultimate aim was to weaken a NATO member and
finally to annex Turkey into the communist block.
 İsmet Parlak, ‘Etnik Kökenli ve Ayrılıkçı Terör
Örgütleri’, in I. Milletlerarası Doğu ve Güneydoğu Anadolu’da
Guvenlik ve Huzur Sempozyumu Bildiriler, (Elazığ: Fırat Üniversitesi,
2000), pp. 986-995; http://www.teror.gen.tr/english/organisations/asala.html.
 For the Armenian terror see: Francis P. Hyland, Armenian Terrorism, The Past, the
Present, the Prospects, Boulder. Westview Press, 1991; Bilal N. Şimşir,
Şehit Diplomatlarımız, (Our Diplomats Martyred), Ankara. Bilgi
Yayınevi, 2000; Justin McCarthy, ‘Armenian Terrorism: History As Poison And
Antidote’, Proceedings of Symposium on International Terrorism, (Ankara: Ankara
University Press, 1984); Eric Feigl, A Myth of Terror, Armenian Extremism: Its Causes
and Its Historical Context, (Salzburg: EZG, 1986); Armenian Terrorism: A Threat to
Peace, (Antalya: Akdeniz University Research Center, 1985); International Terrorism
and the Drug Connection, (Ankara: Ankara University Press, 1984); The Assembly of
Turkish American Associations, Armenian Allegations: Myth and Reality, (Washington,
D.C.: 1987); Enver Yaşarbaş, Ermeni Terörünün Tarihçesi, Ermeni
Komitelerinin Emelleri ve İhtilal Hareketleri, (The History of the Armenian
Terror, The Aims of the Armenian Committees and the Revolutionary Movements),
(İstanbul: Petek Yayınları, 1984); Yves Ternon, The Armenian Cause,
(New York: Caravan Books, 1985).
 Hyland, Armenian..., p. 210.
 Karvik Taverdi, A History of Armenians in Britain, (London: CAIA, 2001). Also see
the web site of the association: http://www.caia.org.uk/content/armeniansinbritain.htm
 For the details see: Hyland, Armenian...; Şimşir, Şehit…; Feigl,
 ‘Terrorism Bill Receives Royal Assent’, Home Office News Release’ London, 1
July 2001; Richard Norton – Taylor, ‘New Terror Bill Casts Wider Net’, The
Guardian, 15 November 1999; Richard Norton – Taylor, ’21 Groups Banned Under New
Terror Law’, The Guardian, 1 March 2001; Ismet Imset, ‘Kani Yilmaz Case’,
Kurdistan Report, 20, January – February 1995; George Manbiot, ‘Wearing a T-Shirt
Makes You a Terrorist, Anything With a Slogan Could Put You Outside the Law Now’,
The Guardian, 22 February 2001; Zafer Arapkirli, ‘İngiltere’nin Terör Sınavı’
(The UK’s Terror Test), NTVMSNBC, 1 March 2001; Sedat Laçiner, İngiltere, Terör,
Kuzey Irlanda Sorunu ve İnsan Hakları (Britain, Terror, Northern Ireland and
Human Rights), (Ankara: Asam, 2001); Sedat Laçiner, ‘İngiltere’de Yeni Terörizm
Yasası: Londra PKK ve DHKP-C’yi Yasaklıyor mu?’, (The New Terrorism Bill
of the UK: London Bans PKK and DKP-C?)’ Stratejik Analiz (monthly, Ankara), Vol. 2,
No. 15, July 2001, pp. 98-108.
 Zafer Arapkirli, ‘British Blow to Armenians’, NTVMSNBC, 23 November 2000.
 ‘Britain, Once Again, Denies Genocide’, Asbarez (Armenian daily), July 31,
 ‘Joining the Holocaust Bandwagon’, Armenian Atrocities & Terrorism, via
net. http: // www.ataa.org/ataa/ref/atrocities/intro/joining_the_holocaust_band.
 For the details of the Holocaust Memorial Day see Holocaust Memorial Day,
Remembering Genocides, Lessons For The Futures, via web.
 The conferences concentrated on the LSE. On 27 November 2000 Conference for
instance Vincent Lima and Ara Sarafian accused Turkey and the Turks under the title of
‘the Future of the Armenian Question’ instead of following a more constructive
way. For the details see: ‘In London, Vincent Lima and Ara Sarafian Discuss The
Future of the Armenian Question’, Armenian Forum, November 2000.
 Other significant names are Armen Sarkissian, Earl of Shannonn, Odeta Bazil, Lord
Walpole, Lord Biffen, and Jane Griffiths (MP).
 ‘İngiltere’de Sözde Soykırımı Şovu’ (The
So-Called Genocide Show in Britain), Zaman, daily, 12 December 2000.
 Independent, 22 November 2000.
 Lords Hansard, 25 January 2001, 3:17 p.m., Column 355.
 ‘Antisemitism in Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia’, Union of Councils for
Soviet Jews, 25 August 1999.
 Yair Auron, ‘Foreign Minister’s Comments Are Israeli Shift To Active Denial’,
The Armenian Weekly, May 2001.
 ‘Rabbi in Turkey Says Jews Only at UK Holocaust Day’, Asbarez, January 26
 Some Armenian researchers claim the number is more than 1 million. Yet it seems
an exaggeration, because the Armenian population in the Ottoman Empire at that time
was less than 1 million and majority of those who had been re-located reached their
destinations: Yusuf Halacoğlu, Ermeni Tehciri ve Gercekler, 1914-1918, (The
Armenian Re-location and the Realities, 1914-1918), (Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu, 2001).
 For the official Turkish view see: Armenian Claims and Historical Facts, (Ankara:
Center for Strategic Research, 1998).
 Robert Fisk, ‘Britain Excludes Armenians from Memorial Day’, The Independent,
30 June 2001.
 Türkkaya Ataöv, A “Statement” Wrongly Attributed to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk,
(Ankara: Sistem Ofset, 1984); Mehmet Perinçek, ‘Atatürk ve Ermeni Sorunu’
(Atatürk and the Armenian Question), in Tarihten Güncelliğe Ermeni Sorunu (The
Armenian Problem from the History to Present), (İstanbul: Kaynak
Yayınları, 2001), pp. 97-139.
 Will Hutton, ‘We All Have Blood On Our Hands’, The Observer, 21 January 2001;
Philip Johnston, ‘Why We Continue to Deny That This Was Genocide’, Daily
telegraph, 11 January 2001;
 Some of these articles written by the Armenian authors as seen in Matossian’s
article in Independent (‘Survivor of 20th Century’s First Holocaust’,
Independent, 30 June 2001) although even Turkish letters to the Editor pages could not
find room in the British papers.
 For the other examples see: David Cesarani, ‘Myth and Memory’, The Guardian,
24 January 2001; Stephen Deal, ‘Holocaust That History Forgot’, Evening News
(Edinburg), 1 February 2001; Robert Fisk, ‘Why the Armenian Holocaust Must Not Be
Airbrushed From History’, Independent, 27 November 2000; Paul Glastris, ‘Meanwhile
For Armenia, A Symbol of Salvaged History’, IHT, 14 March 2001; ‘Nazi Holocaust
Victims Remembered’, BBC News Online, 27 January 2001; Philip Johnston, ‘Home
Office Runs the Show for BBC’, Daily Telegraph, 11 January 2001.
 ‘Treasures of Ark Exhibition Opens in London’, Asbarez, 2 March 2001.