|
|
I didn't study the 1909 period, and
I'm putting up this information mostly for reference until I learn more. Peter
Balakian tells us the reason why this conflict took place is because the
Armenians of Adana were regarded as "pushy" and "considered
provocative because they were asserting cultural pride and nationalism."
True to form, the author makes no mention... in his usual attempt to portray
the Armenians as innocent victims.... that the Armenians
in Adana rose in revolt on April 14, 1909.
ADDENDUM, 9-06: By now I have learned a lot more about the Adana
episode, and the latter part of this page will deviate from the Balakian book,
with other Adana references.
|
|
|
| Analysis
of Adana |
The chapter outlines the
revolting of soldiers in April 12, aided by religious zealots in Istanbul, and the
counterrevolution getting put down in April 23 by the army of the Young Turks. Growing
stronger, the author tells us the CUP would embrace a plan of Turkification known as
pan-Turkism. The counterrevolution was felt throughout the rest of the country as well,
and in Adana, the events led to the massacres of Armenians.
On April 12 or 13, the British
dragoman in Adana, Athanasios Trypanis, reported to British vice-consul Doughty Wylie in
Mersin that some Armenians had been murdered. What started the chaos was an Armenian named
Ohannes who killed two Turks, as Wylie reported to Sir G. Lowther that the author
failed to write about; it must have been an oversight.
Another telegram Balakian fails
to mention is one from Sir G. Lowther to Sir Edward Grey on April 15, 1909:
I have received a telgram
from His Majesty's Vice-Consul at Mersina reporting that disorder have been broken out at
Adana in which a number of persons have been killed. British subjects are in no danger. So far Armenian quarter, which
is armed, has not been attacked. Major Doughly Wylie thinks that the trouble is spreading
and the situation at Mersina and Tarsus appears to him anxious. I am assured by the Porte
that thay are doing all that is possible.
Wylie noted Armenians
terrorized and killed by bashebozuks, who claimed the Armenians were rising up against the
government (as reported in H. Charles Woods' "The Danger Zone of Europe," 1911),
with the authorities doing little. Two American missionaries were killed by five Turks.
Wylie was then shot and wounded by an Armenian, who thought he was a Turk.
Balakian notes some 2,000
Armenians were dead in the city of Adana in the first 48 hours. Young Turk regiments who
arrived in Adana to restore order in April 25 contributed to the massacres with greater
zeal. "The newly arrived soldiers claimed that they were fired on by Armenians,"
which the author notes was "a strategy the Turks and the Ottoman government had used
before... to justify massacre."
(What an absurd justification.
If the idea was to polish off the Armenians, why did the Turks stop? Just like in
"!915." If the idea was to exterminate, how could one million Armenians have
survived, as Peter Balakian himself conceded... Does that make sense? When soldiers are
fired upon by rebels, the rebels can expect return fire. That's a "law" any
country abides by. Yet when the Turks do it, it's murder.)
As the soldiers were going
berserk, Balakian continues, and fires raged (as Doughty recorded in an April 26 consular
report), 13,000 Armenians packed themselves in a Greek-owned factory, 5,000 in a German
factory, and the girls at the American school were hidden in the British consulate.
"As the weeks of April went by" (weeks? there were only four days left in April
from this point in the story), surrounding villages were "razed and pillaged."
In the northern part of the province, the Armenians in Hadjin and Dortyol "fought
tenaciously in resistance, beat back the Turks, and saved themselves from total
annihilation." "Some 200 villages were ... ravaged." Wylie noted the death
toll may be estimated at between 15,000 and 25,000, where "very few, if any, can be
Moslems."
|
The Muslim Dead and Notes on Doughty-Wylie
The Western perspective,
as always, is to solely consider the Armenian casualties. In Adana, 1,850 Muslims
died, according to Jemal Pasha, along with 17,000 Armenians. As you can read in THE
ARMENIAN FILE excerpt below, if the population ratio had been reversed (Armenians
comprised one-tenth of the population), so too could have been the mortality figures.
The Armenian representatives settled on around 21,000.
Soldier-Diplomat Charles
Hotham Doughty-Wylie, nicknamed "Dick," (1868-1915) was the nephew of the
Arabian explorer Charles Doughty. The Turks decorated Doughty-Wylie for his courage in
saving lives during the Adana turmoil of 1909. Six years later, Doughty-Wylie led an
invasion against the country which had celebrated him. As a staff officer during the
Gallipoli landings, he reportedly saved the landing from disaster by leading a charge,
clearing the Turks from Cape Helles. At the moment of victory. the report tells us,
Doughty-Wylie ("who had led the attack armed only with a small cane") was
killed.
|
Balakian informs
us that punishments in the aftermath were "hollow and only for show." An
Ottoman parliamentary representative, Hagop Babikian "died mysteriously."
"Some Turks and even some Armenians were sentenced to death." (Only one Armenian was executed, along with forty-seven
Turks; is that what Balakian considers "hollow" punishment?) The
Governor was debarred, and the military commander was sentenced to three months in
jail.
It was these
events that inspired Siamento to write poems like "The Dance," where the
poet "creates images" that would lead Ambassador Morgenthau to call the
"sadistic orgies" of Turkish massacres. (Shades of The Forty Days of
Musa Dagh... so it was this poetic fiction that influenced Henry's
perception of Turkish barbarism, instead of verifiable history.)
As with the rest
of the book, the author paints the picture of evil Turks and innocent Armenians, and
the only reason for the attack is that the Armenians were "pushy," and
"considered provocative because they were asserting cultural pride and
nationalism." I would think the provocation extended to more... like the
Armenian who fired the first shot by killing the two Turks. We know from the other
telegram that the Armenians were armed, and I'd bet what the soldiers claimed was at
the root of the problem... that the Armenians attacked first. (They must have been
heavily armed, to have fought the Turkish army in Hadjin and Dortyol.... "in
resistance.") These armed Armenians were roaming about shooting at anything
that moved... like the one who shot Wylie himself. Furthermore, at least there was
an attempt to punish the authorities who didn't do enough to protect the innocent
among the Armenians, and Turks were even executed.
Using
Christopher Walker and a 1999 work by Aram Arkun as sources, we are told Armenians
comprised less than 20,000 in the city of Adana (pg. 148). As the crisis was winding
down by the time of Wylie's April 26 report, over 18,000 Armenians were tucked away
uncomfortably, but safely. Since not every single Armenian in the city was stashed
away in these factories and the British consulate, that equals pretty much the
entire Armenian population of the city of Adana, doesn't it? How could there have
been 2,000 Armenian dead in the first 48 hours? And that was before the arrival of
the Young Turk regiment, where Balakian writes, "the killing was even more
brutal and well organized," conducted as it was by the army. Which Armenians
were being killed, if over 18,000... nearly the entire Armenian population of Adana....
were in these safe havens?
|
| Were the
Armenians at Adana attacked only because they were Armenians... or, as in the events
of 1915, did the Armenians fire the first shot? Kamuran Gürün offers much needed
historical perspective from THE ARMENIAN FILE (pp. 166-70): |
7. The Adana incident and the end of attempts at reform
(a) The Adana incident
The years 1897-1914 constitute the most disastrous period of the
Ottoman Empire. Within and outside the country, incidents were occurring every day, and
the Empire was clearly disintegrating.
The regime within the country was now unbearable. The administration
could no longer control the insurrections and rebellions, and followed such a policy that
it seemed to vent its anger, arising out of its inability to control, on a silent
community. As a result of this, secret organizations were founded inside and outside the
country, working to put an end to this absolutist regime.
Although the Turco-Greek War ended in victory, the Ottoman Empire
came out of the war empty-handed, owing to the intervention of the great powers, and had
to recognize the autonomy of Crete. Moreover, France landed soldiers on Lesbos in 1901,
the Macedonian rebellion occurred in 1902, and the Arabian peninsula was in turmoil.
The struggle which was begun by the Committee of Union and Progress (Ittihad
ve Terakki Cerryiyeti), in the hope of putting an end to this process, ended on 24
July 1908 with the declaration of the Second Constitutional Government. However, this
Government was unable to find any way of improving the condition of the Empire. On 5
October 1908, Austria occupied Bosnia-Herzegovina, on the same day Bulgaria declared its
independence, and on 6 October Greece annexed Crete.
The first Assembly of the Second Constitutional Government was
opened on 17 December 1908 in this situation.
On 13 April 1909, the reactionary coup known as `the event of 31
March, aimed at abolishing the Constitutional Government, took place in Istanbul.
The next day a confrontation between Muslims and Armenians occurred
in Adana, and the last bloody stage of the Armenian question began.
At this time, Adana was like a barrel of gunpowder ready to explode
at any moment. The British documents clearly attest to this. We read as follows in the
report of the British Embassy:
[After the proclamation of the constitution) nearly no one in
Adana was really satisfied. The Turks hated the idea that they were no longer masters. The
Armenian wanted to rush into Home Rule. The Greek mistrusted the constitution because he
had not made it himself and because under it he seemed likely to lose certain facilities
he had enjoyed under the old venal system. . . .
Under the constitution all men might bear arms. From the
delightful novelty of the thing, many thousands of revolvers were purchased. Even
schoolboys had them and, boy-like, flourished them about. But worse followed. The swagger
of the arm-bearing Armenian and his ready tongue irritated the ignorant Turks. Threats and
insults passed on both sides. Certain Armenian leaders, delegates from Constantinople, and
priests (an Armenian priest is in his way an autocrat) urged their congregations to buy
arms. It was done openly, indiscreetly, and, in some cases, it might be said wickedly.
What can be thought of a preacher, a Russian Armenian, who in a church in this city where
there had never been a massacre, preached revenge for the martyrs of 1895? Constitution or
none, it was all the same to him. `Revenge,' he said, `murder for murder. Buy arms. A Turk
for every Armenian of 1895.' An American missionary who was present got up and left the
church. Bishop Mushech, of Adana, toured his province preaching that he who had a coat
should sell it and buy a gun. (131)
It appears that the Governor and the Commander in Adana at the time
were not capable of resisting an incident of any kind. In his memoirs, Jemal Pasha wrote:
A young priest who passionately sought authority, named Mushech,
was at the time a member of the Adana Armenian Delegation, and was also one of the leaders
of the Hinchaks.
Monsignor Mushech had begun to have rifles and revolvers brought
from Europe to arm his men. He was publicly announcing that [Armenians were now armed,
that they would no longer fear incidents such as the 1894 massacres and that should so
much as a single hair on an Armenian's head be disturbed, ten Turks would be destroyed.]
It is here that the biggest responsibility of the Adana
government begins. . . . To arrest and imprison His Excellency Mushech and his
accomplices, to undertake legal investigation with regard to them, and even to declare a
state of siege in the province was the best short cut.
Unfortunately in Turkey. . . such a government did not exist in
1908.
At that time, the province of Adana was administered by Governor
Jevat Bey, who was a perfect example of a cultured gentleman. However, his lack of
administrative talent could not be replaced by his culture. In short, he was not the man
to serve as Governor of Adana at such a time.
As for the Division Commander, he was an old soldier named Ferit
Mustafa Remzi Pasha.
The Governor of the Jebelibereket sanjak was Asaf Bey. I cannot
understand how this faint-hearted man who was afraid of his own shadow could become a
governor.
In the beginning of 1909 there were rumours circulating in Adana,
that soon the Armenians would rebel and annihilate the Turks, that the European fteet
would invade the province on this pretext, and that they would ensure the establishment of
Armenia.
The Turks paid so much attention to these rumours that some of
the notables attempted to send their families to safer areas.
In the month of April 1909, there was so much tension between the
two sides, that nobody had any doubt that a confrontation would occur at any moment.
Finally, on April l4th, the [Adana incident] occurred, first of
all with the Armenians' attacks on the orders of Monsignor Mushech.
Such horrible massacres had begun in Adana, Hamidiye, Tarsus,
Misis, Erzin, Dortyol, Azizli, in short in every area where the Armenians were in a
majority, that reading their details would afflict one with great hatred.
The Government, which was quite helpless in the provincial centre,
demonstrated its stupidity to the extent of ordering a general insurrection to prevent
attacks against the Muslim folk under its jurisdiction. When he was informed that the
Armenians of Dortyol were advancing with an armed convoy to the town of Erzin, the centre
of the sanjak of Jebelibereket, the sanjak governor Asaf Bey, without even leaving his
office, sent telegrams to all the places under his jurisdiction, as well as to the
neighbouring sanjak of Kozan, stating that it would be necessary (for every patriotic Turk
to take his arms and rush to the aid of the sanjak of Jebelibereket, as the Muslims here
were in danger of being massacred].
These are the reasons and causes of the first Adana incident. The
second Adana incident occurred eleven days after the first, and was restricted to the city
of Adana. It began when some Armenian youths opened fire on the soldiers' camp at night,
and this in turn triggered worse massacres in the city of Adana.
In my opinion the sole responsibility for the Adana massacres
lies in the person of the renowned author of Les Vepres Ciliciennes, Monsignor Mushech.
The Adana government of the time, which realized the harm this individual was capable of,
and did not take any preventive measures, is also responsible. (132)
We should bear in mind that the above statements are taken from the
memoirs of Jemal Pasha, and therefore refiect his own version of these events. Recently
the memoirs of Asaf Bey, who was the Governor of the sanjak of Jebelibereket at that time,
have been published, and the picture he presents is somewhat different. As Asaf Bey was
exonerated in the investigation which followed the Adana incident, at the very time when
the government was looking for a scapegoat for these events, it may well be that the
accusations of Jemal Pasha were somewhat subjective and exaggerated.
The British also shared Jemal Pasha's view of Bishop Mushech. The
above-mentioned document also includes the following footnote:
Since writing the above on Bishop Mushech I got another view of
him and his conduct, which may be of some interest. I was urging on one of the Delegates
of the Patriarch the necessity of finding some modus vivendi between the two races. In the
forefront of his conditions for peace he placed the pardon of this Bishop.
`He has done nothing,' he said, `nothing at all. It is true that
he took bribes from Bahri Pasha. It is true that he was in the arms trade, and sold the
people bad arms for good money. It is true that he preached to them to buy arms, and
thereby made much money. It is true that he made foolish speeches. It is true that he used
to go to the vineyards with a rifle and bandolier on his shoulder. It is true that he had
himself photographed in the costume of the old chiefs of Armenia, But what of all that? It
is nothing.'
At the time of the incidents, Mushech was in Egypt. Without doubt he
would have taken an active part in the incidents, if he had been in Adana. The British
Ambassador, in another report dated 4 May 1909, states that the Armenian Patriarch was
responsible to a great extent for the incidents. (133)
The incidents spread when Armenians killed two young Muslims and
refused to hand over the assailant, and Muslims and Armenians fought in the streets for
three days.
The government immediately dispatched soldiers from Dedeaghach to
Adana. Their arrival rekindled the incidents, but this time they were easily crushed.
Jemal Pasha writes that in the Adana incident 17,000 Armenians and 1,850 Muslims were
killed, and that, had the population ratios been in favour of the Armenians, the
statistics would have been reversed. The inclinations shown by both sides during the
fighting did not differ from one another.
The Patriarchate gives the number of dead as 21,300 based on the
investigation it carried out. The Edirne representative, Babikian Efendi [See Box below] , had prepared a report to be submitted to the
Assembly. He gave the number of dead as 21,001 in his report which was not discussed in
the Assembly, as he died shortly after. (134) Because the figure given by Jemal Pasha
pertains to the time after the trials, it can be accepted that the number of Armenians who
died is closer to 17,000 rather than 20,000, as it is possible that some had returned
after having fled during the incidents.
A FOOTNOTE
From Richard G.
Hovannisian's 'Armenia on the Road to Independence,' 1967:
Hakob Papikian,
member of Parliament of Inquiry, 21,000 victims, 19,479 of whom were Armenian [Adanay,
eghere (The Atrocity of Adana), Const. 1919]
(The difference: 1,521)
ADDENDUM,
5-07:
Hovannisian revised his figure of dead Armenians to 18,660 in an essay from a decade later. His
source appears to be the same, spelled here as "Hagop Babiguian."
============================
Armenian historian
Kevork Aslan:
"20,000
butchered"
Armenia
and the Armenians From the Earliest Times Until the Great War (1914), 1920, MacMillan Co., NY, p. 130
|
The Adana incident appears as a case in which Armenians were
responsible in so far as they engaged in provocation until it erupted, and the local
government was responsible in that it was unable to control it once it happened.
However, this was not in any way a case of one side massacring the other, as the
Armenians and the Muslims both fought fiercely. As Jemal Pasha pointed out, if the
Armenian population had been in the majority, instead of being one-tenth of the Muslim
population, the numbers of dead might well have been reversed.
The British Ambassador, in the reports mentioned above, stated
that it was not possible to make the two sides declare a cease-fire, and that the
cease-fire which was obtained with the soldiers' intervention was disregarded as soon as
the soldiers left the area.
After the incident, martial law was declared in
Adana. The Armenian and Muslim culprits were sent to the military court martial. Jemal
Pasha, who was appointed to Adana after the incident, wrote as follows:
Four months after I arrived at Adana, I had 30 Muslims, among
the martial court convicts, hanged, only in the city of Adana, and 2 months later I had
17 Muslims hanged in the town of Erzin. Only one Armenian was hanged. Among the Muslims
who were hanged, there were young members of the most established and wealthy families
of Adana, as well as the mufti of the kaza of Bahche. This mufti had great influence on
the local Turks. I regret deeply that I was unable to capture Monsignor Mushech as he
escaped in a foreign ship to Alexandria, on the second day of the Adana incident. If I
had captured this person, who was rightly sentenced to death in default, I would have
hanged him opposite the mufti of Bahche.
The last incident of Adana was thus concluded.
131: F.O. 424/220, No. 48, enclosure
132: Jemal Pasha, Hatiralar (Istanbul,
1959), pp. 345-6.
133: F.O. 424/219, No. 83.
134: USNA, 353/43, No. 87, 4016/13
|
In 1909, During
the Adana Massacres...
|
The Armenians were making mischief throughout the
empire, despite the fact that it was only one year after the Young Turks had
implemented reforms, giving the Armenians more freedoms than before. (It can be more
accurate to say "because of" instead of "despite.") The
revolutionary committees were not only targeting innocent Turks, as in Adana (hoping
to set off a reprisal, thus allowing the European imperialists to intervene). They
were also targeting loyal Ottoman-Armenians. In 1909, here is the fate of one such
Armenian (Bedros Kapamaciyan), when he was elected mayor of Van.
|
| A Typical Western Book Regarding Adana |
Book Review
22 September 2006
THE RED RUGS OF TARSUS
A Woman’s Record of the Armenian Massacres of 1909
By Helen Davenport Gibbons
The New York Century Co. 1917
Published, April 1917
The Letters that a young teacher at St. Paul’s College in Tarsus (the predecessor of
Tarsus American College) sent to her mother in the United States beginning with her
arrival in Tarsus on her 26th birthday on Dec 2, 1908, and published as a book in 1917, is
available on the ArmenianHouse.org website. (St. Paul’s Colege was established in 1888
by Col. Elliott Shepard on the persuasion of missionary Dr. Thomas Christie following his
stop over in Tarsus on his way to Jerusalem.) For those interested in the early life at
Tarsus American College and what happened in Adana and Tarsus in 1909, and how the
incidents were made public in the US, this is a very valuable, nostalgic and easy to read
book. It is interesting that the 194 page book (short pages) has been dedicated to the
‘’Memory of C.H.M. Doughty-Whlie, V.C., the Major of this book who was killed in
action leading a charge on Gallipoli Peninsula, April 29, 1915.’’
The ‘’Book of Letters’’ opens with the young teacher wishing that her mother was
with her on her first married birthday in front of the fireplace in her bedroom at St.
Paul’s College, twenty years after its founding. Than, the author goes on describing her
house and its contents, including a First Aid outfit given to her as a wedding gift. In
the next chapter, she writes about her and her husband Herbert’s teaching their classes
how to plan and construct an essay and describes the Christmas celebrations at night,
referring to her cooking that she learned at Simmons College and Bryn Mawr as having
prepared her for the adventure in a country which she refers to as ‘’god forsaken
lands.’’
The teacher refers to Dr. Thomas Christie and also Daddy Christie several times, and
writes about their Greek helper, Socrates, whose education they sponsor, and their
Armenian friends, seldom mentioning Turks in the book, only referring to them as being
indifferent to human suffering. There are also references to the activities of Mormon and
British missionaries in the area. In pages 27-30, Helen writes about their trip to the
Cave of Seven Sleepers, something that a Tarsus graduate also mentioned in his latest
‘’Ashab-i Keyf’’’ story, except Helen states that the seven men that fled from
Tarsus slept in the cave for one hundred years rather than three hundred and nine years,
and when they wake up, they learn that that the whole world was Christian.
On page 40, Helen writes about her weekend trip to Adana where they visit the family of
Chambers who live in the heart of the Armenian quarter and run the Girl’s School of the
Mission in Adana, a city of sixty thousand. The family also makes weekend trips to Mersina
(present day Mersin) and Helen writes about the Christie family and how one day Dr.
Christie purchases one hundred chickens with his Civil War pension when they run out of
food.
In her letter dated April 14, 1909, Helen writes
about massacres starting in Adana where four Armenian women were killed followed by the
hundreds, both Armenians and Turks, and how Armenians in Tarsus start coming to the
school, looking for protection, food and shelter. Than, the teacher states: ‘’How
would you like to live in a country where you knew your Government not only would not
protect you, but would periodically incite your neighbors to rob and kill you with the
help of the army.’’ On page 138, she writes about the death of Daniel Miner Rogers,
one of the missionaries, in Adana, who was actually killed by a stray bullet, as noted in
a recent message form one of our former teachers and Principals, which is not mentioned in
the book. Daniel Miner Rogers was the husband of Mrs. Mary Christie Rogers Nute, whose
grandchildren live in Pennsylvania, I believe.
Helen gives birth to a baby girl and the book ends with the departure of the teacher with
her husband and new born baby to Egypt in April, 1909.
The author refers to the Adana incidents as if one day the Ottoman Turks decided to kill
all the Armenians, without giving any background information on the causes and making no
reference to the findings of the ‘’Commission’’ that was established by the
Ottoman Government following the incidents which included an Armenian Deputy, Hagop
Babikian, to determine the causes of the incident. (The Commission Report was prepared but
not not presented to the Parliament due to the death of Babikian the night before the
scheduled debate, some even claiming that Babikian was murdered by some Armenians since he
knew the facts, according to Salahi Sonyel’s book (1).) According to the memoirs of
Talat Pasa, the purpose of the incidents was to provoke the people to riot, to attract
European attention, and to establish an autonomous Armenian state in Cilicia. As presented
in Salahi Sonyel’s book , bishop Mousheg was a ‘firebrand’ who was seeking to force
the foreign Powers to intervene, with the ultimate aim of declaring himself ‘king of
Cilicia’ as confirmed by secret British documents (p.71).
Much has been written about the incidents that took place in Adana and vicinity following
the proclamation of Second Mesrutiyet in 1908 which provided equality among the different
nationalities and allowed anyone in the Ottoman Empire to obtain guns freely. A 240 page
book by Yusuf Ziya Bildirici (2) tells in detail the causes and the consequences of the
incidents with full of references, documents and photographs. The proclamation gave the
Armenian rebels the opportunity to accumulate huge arsenals of weapons and the Armenian
bishop Mousheg, whose only aim in life was to be king, organized them in regular fighting
forces who started the massacres of the Ottoman Turks, according to Salahi Sonyel. These
facts, however, are not mentioned in ‘’The Red Carpets of Tarsus’’, described
in many other books, including Guenter Lewy’s ‘’The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman
Turkey – A Disputed Genocide" (3).
There are hundreds and thousands of books and articles written by the Armenians and their
supporters about the Armenian issue, always referring to it as the ‘’Armenian
massacres’’ and ‘’Armenian genocide,’’ when in fact, the issue was started by
the Armenians and hundreds of thousands of Ottoman Turks were massacred by the Armenians
who rebelled against their own government. In defense, the Ottoman Turks took to arms and
killed Armenian rebels. Also, it was not only the Armenians and the Ottomans who were
involved, but also the Russians, the British, the French, the Italians, the Armenian
Patriarch and many organizations which are mentioned very little, although they bear the
responsibility for this tragedy which resulted in the death of both the Armenians and the
Ottomans.
For those interested, a photograph of Christie House in Camliyayla (Namrun) is given in
the Attachment where photographs of Dr. Christie and his wife adorn the walls. Following a
visit there two years ago, additional photographs were distributed to Tarsus American
College alumni group (TAC) together with a suggestion that the House could be turned into
a TAC Museum.
It is recommended that who ever reads the ‘’Red carpets of Tarsus’’ should also
look at the books given below and others in order to get a balanced view of the Adana
incidents.
Yuksel Oktay, PE
Istanbul
Notes:
(1) The Great War and the Tragedy of
Anatolia, (Turks and Armenians in the Maelstorm of Major Powers), by Salahi Sonyel. Turk
Tarih Kurumu, 2001 (In English)
(2) Adana’da Ermenilerin yaptigi Katliamlar ve Fransiz-Ermeni Iliskileri, by Yusuf Ziya
Bildirici, KOK Sosyal ve Stratejik Arastirmalar Serici No. 15, Ankara, 1999. (In Turkish)
(3) The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey – A Disputed Genocide, by Guenter Lewy, The
University of Utah Press. 2005
|
Marmaduke Pickthall
on Adana
|
"The massacres at Adana in 1909 are ascribed to the Young Turks by Mr.
Toynbee, as if there were no doubt about the matter. I was in Syria at the time, and
fanatical emissaries landed at Tripoli, Beyrout, and Jaffa with the same purpose
with which they landed at Mersin, of preaching massacre of Christians. But they were
arrested by the local Committees of Union and Progress and deported, which does not
look as if the Young Turks were the instigators. It is true that members of the
local committee at Adana took part in the massacres, but that committee had been
captured by disguised reactionaries. There are several other cool assumptions in
this book."
Marmaduke Pickthall, in a
letter exchange with Arnold Toynbee, The New Age, December 16, 1915, Vol.
XVIII. No. 7. He thoroughly refutes Toynbee's propagandistic Blue Book, adding: "If the Turkish Government had really
wished to exterminate the Armenians there was nothing to prevent its doing so that I
can see." What sane person can argue?
|
| |
Back to Part I & Part II
of "The Burning Tigris"
|
| 
