Tweet
The Turkish Paradox, Part I
FrontPageMagazine.com
December 16, 2004
By Gamaliel Issac
In my previous article, Turkey's Dark Past[i] I exposed the falseness
of the claims of Mr. Akyol that ?Turkey has had an Islamic heritage
free of anti-Westernism and anti-Semitism? Mr. Akyol wrote a
rebuttal, What?s Right With Turkey[ii], in which he argued that the
Turks have a great record when it comes to the Jews and that when the
Jews were expelled from Spain, they were welcomed by the Sultan. In
addition he writes that Jews expelled from Hungary in 1376, from
France by Charles VI in September 1394, and from Sicily early in the
15th century, found refuge in the Ottoman Empire.
Mustapha Akyol points out that the blood libel and other such standard
anti-Semitic nonsense was unknown in Muslim lands until the 19th
century and that these were introduced to the Middle East by the
"westernized" elite, who had been infected by the anti-Semitic plague
from its ultimate source: Europe. He points out that Mr. Salahattin
Ulkumen, Consul General at Rhodes in 1943-1944, was recognized by the
Yad Vashem as a Righteous Gentile "Hassid Umot ha'Olam" in June 1990
for his efforts to save Jews and how Marseilles vice-consul Necdet
Kent, boarded a railway car full of Jews bound for Auschwitz, risking
his own life in an attempt to persuade the Germans to send them back
to France.
How can we reconcile the refuge provided by Turkey for the Jews of
Europe and the heroic efforts made by Turkish politicians such as
Mr. Ulkumen and Mr. Kent with the atrocities committed by the Turks
against the Armenians and against the Jews of Palestine which I
described in my article, Turkey's Dark Past?
Mr. Akyol?s explanation is that what the West sees as an unjust
massacre of the Armenians was simply fighting between Turks and
Armenians. In his article What?s Right With Turkey he wrote: ?What
happened in 1915, and beforehand, was mutual killing in which the
Armenian loss was greater than that of the Muslims (Turks and Kurds),
but in which the brutality was pretty similar on both sides.? Another
rationale for the Turkish ?fighting? provided by Mr. Akyol was that of
Armenian revolutionary agitation and aid given the invading Russians
by Anatolian Armenians.
In my article Turkey's Dark Past I quote passages from Serge
Trifkovic?s book, The Sword of the Prophet[iii], which convincingly
demonstrate that what happened at Smyrna was a massacre. Mr. Akyol
dismisses my quotes from Serge Trifkovic?s book on the grounds that
Mr. Trifkovic is not a reliable source and that he is an advocate of
?aggressive Serbian nationalism, which was responsible for the ethnic
cleansing and the related war crimes committed against the Muslims of
Bosnia Herzegovina during 1992-95.? In regards to Mr. Trifkovic?s
comments about the Turkish destruction of the city of Smyrna,
Mr. Akyol writes that Smyrna was an Ottoman city that was liberated
from the occupying Greek army, an army that had committed atrocities
against the Turks while occupying the city.
Mr. Akyol addressed my arguments about the role of Islam in the
massacre of the Armenians by referring the reader to two articles he
has written, two articles which do shed light on the massacres of the
Armenians but not in the way he intended.
In this article I will point out the errors in Mr. Akyol?s arguments
and provide an alternative explanation for the paradox of Turkish
tolerance to the Jews of Europe and cruelty to the Armenian
Christians. In addition I will discuss the paradox of the refuge
given the European Jews by the Turks in Anatolia in the context of the
intolerance of the Turks towards the Jews of Palestine. Finally I
will discuss the relevance of Turkish history to the question of
whether or not Turkey should be accepted into the European Union.
Smyrna, A Greek or an Ottoman City?
Mustafa Akyol wrote that[iv] ?The truth is that Smyrna (known as Izmir
in Turkish) was an Ottoman city that included a Greek quarter, and the
Turks were not invading Smyrna, they were liberating the city from the
occupying Greek army.?
Mr. Akyol?s argument that Smyrna was an Ottoman and not a Greek city
ignores over a thousand years of history. According to the
Encyclopedia Brittanica Online:
?Greek settlement is first clearly attested by the presence of pottery
dating from about 1000 BC. According to the Greek historian Herodotus
, the Greek city was founded by Aeolians but soon was seized by
Ionians. From modest beginnings, it grew into a stately city in the
7th century, with massive fortifications and blocks of two-storied
houses. Captured by Alyattes of Lydia about 600 BC, it ceased to
exist as a city for about 300 years until it was refounded by either
Alexander the Great or his lieutenants in the 4th century BC at a new
site on and around Mount Pagus. It soon emerged as one of the
principal cities of Asia Minor and was later the centre of a civil
diocese in the Roman province of Asia, vying with Ephesus and Pergamum
for the title ?first city of Asia.? Roman emperors visited there, and
it was celebrated for its wealth, beauty, library, school of medicine,
and rhetorical tradition. The stream of Meles is associated in local
tradition with Homer, who is reputed to have been born by its banks.
Smyrna was one of the early seats of Christianity.
Capital of the naval theme (province) of Samos under the Byzantine
emperors, Smyrna was taken by the Turkmen Aydin principality in the
early 14th century AD. After being conquered in turn by the crusaders
sponsored by Pope Clement VI and the Central Asian conqueror Timur
(Tamerlane), it was annexed to the Ottoman Empire about 1425. Although
severely damaged by earthquakes in 1688 and 1778, it remained a
prosperous Ottoman port with a large European population.
Izmir [Smyrna] was occupied by Greek forces in May 1919 and recaptured
by Turkish forces under Mustafa Kemal (later Kemal Atatürk) on
September 9, 1922."
One problem with the encyclopedic summary above is that as a necessary
consequence of its brevity we do not realize what the events described
really entail. Here is what Marjorie Housepian Dobkin, wrote about
the first conquest of Smyrna in 1402 by Tamerlane and his Muslim army
in her book The Smyrna Affair[v].
?In 1402 Tamerlaine butchered the inhabitants and razed the buildings
in an orgy of cruelty that would become legendary. While the
inhabitants slept, his men stealthily undermined the city's wall and
propped them up with timber smeared with pitch. Then he applied the
torch, the walls sank into ditches prepared to receive them, and the
city lay open to the invader. Smyrna's would be defenders, the
Knights of Saint John, escaped to their ships by fighting their way
through a mob of panic-stricken inhabitants. They escaped just in
time, for Tamerlaine ordered a thousand prisoners beheaded and used
their skulls to raise a monument in his honor. He did not linger over
his victory - it was his custom to ravage and ride on. He rode on to
Ephesus, where the city's children were sent out to greet and appease
him with song. "What is this noise?" he roared, and ordered his
horsemen to trample the children to death.?
Attacking the Messenger
In an attempt to refute my quotes from Mr. Serge Trifkovic?s book, The
Sword of Islam, Mustafa Akyol accused him of supporting Serbian war
criminals and of being ?one of the leaders of the Bosnian Serbs during
the years of ethnic cleansing.? These accusations are recycled
accusations that were made previously by Stephen Schwartz and that
Mr. Trifkovic has already answered in an article in Frontpage Magazine
(see Reply to Stephen Schwartz By Serge Trifkovic[vi]). In the text
preceding that article, David Horowitz apologized to Mr. Trifkovic for
the false accusations made by Steven Schwartz. Mr. Horowitz wrote:
?Frontpage regrets characterizations of Serge Trifkovic, author of
Sword of Islam, that were made in an article by Stephen Schwartz
(CAIR's Axis of Evil) to the effect that Trifkovic, is an Islamophobe,
is associated with Pravda or Antiwar.com, and "was the main advocate
in the West for the regime of Slobodan Milosevic." Serge Trifkovic is
not associated with either Pravda or Antiwar.com. He was not a
supporter of Slobodan Milosevic. He is not an Islamophobe nor would
Frontpage have given extensive space to a summary of his book if he
were.?
Corroboration of Mr. Trifkovic
There are independent sources that corroborate the excerpts of
Mr. Trifkovic?s book that I included in my previous article. Here are
a few accounts that corroborate Mr. Trifkovic?s account of the Turkish
massacre of the inhabitants of Smyrna. I include the following
excerpt from Marjorie Housepian?s book, The Smyrna Affair[vii], in
particular to answer the Turkish propaganda that the Greeks, not the
Turks, set fire to the city.
?Anita Chakerian, a young teacher at the [American Collegiate]
Institute, saw the Turkish guards dragging into the building large
sacks, which they deposited in various corners. They were bringing
rice and potatoes the men said, because they knew the people were
hungry and would soon have nothing left to eat. The sacks were not to
be opened until the bread was exhausted. Such unexpected generosity
led one of the sailors to investigate; the bags held gunpowder and
dynamite. On Tuesday night, wagons bearing gasoline drums again moved
through the deserted streets around the College?
At 1:00 A.M. on Wednesday, Mabel Kalfa, a Greek nurse at the
Collegiate Institute, saw three fires in the neighborhood. At 4:00
A.M. fires in a small wooden hut adjoining the College wall and on a
veranda near the school were put out by firemen. At noon on Wednesday
a sailor beckoned Mabel Kalfa and Miss Mills to the window in the
dining room. ?Look there,? he said. ?The Turks are setting the
fires!? The women could see three Turkish officers silhouetted in the
window of a photographer?s shop opposite the school. Moments after
the men emerged, flames poured from the roof and the windows? Said
Miss Mills: ?I could plainly see the Turks carrying tins of petroleum
into the houses, from which, in each instance, fire burst forth
immediately afterward.?
It was not long before all of Smyrna was on fire. Ms. Housepian
writes:
?The spectacle along the waterfront haunted Melvin Johnson for the
rest of his life. ?When we left it was just getting dusk,? he
remembers. ?As we were pulling out I?ll never forget the screams. As
far as we could go you could hear ?em screaming and hollering, and the
fire was going on? most pitiful thing you ever saw in your life. In
your life. Could never hear nothing like it any other place in the
world, I don?t think. And the city was set in a ? a kind of a hill,
and the fire was on back coming this way toward the ship. That was
the only way the people could go, toward the waterfront. A lot of ?em
were jumping in, committing suicide, It was a sight all right.?
Ms. Housepian wrote how:
?On the Iron Duke, Major Arthur Maxwell of His Majesty?s Royal
Marines, watching through binoculars, distinguished figures pouring
out buckets of liquid among the refugees. At first he took them to be
firemen attempting to extinguish the flames, then he realized, to his
horror, that every time they appeared there was a sudden burst of
flames. ?My God! They?re trying to burn the refugees!? he exclaimed.
Ms. Housepian included the account of reporter John Clayton who wrote:
?Except for the squalid Turkish quarter, Smyrna has ceased to exist.
The problem for the minorities is here solved for all time. No doubt
remains as to the origin of the fire?The torch was applied by Turkish
regular soldiers.?
The Rebellion Excuse:
Mr. Akyol started his article by excusing the Armenian Genocide with
the excuse that the Armenians rebelled against the Turks and helped
the Russians.
One reason that this is a poor excuse is that the Armenians had every
reason to rebel against the Turks. Marjorie Housepian[viii],
describes what Dhimmi life was like under the Turks.
"Beginning in the fifteenth century, Ottoman policy drove the most
unmanageable elements, such as the Kurds, into the six Armenian
provinces in the isolated northeast. Thereafter, the Armenians were
not only subjected to the iniquitous tax-farming system (applicable to
the Moslem peasants as well), the head tax, and the dubious privilege
of the military exemption tax, but also to impositions that gave the
semi barbarous tribes license to abuse them. The hospitality tax,
which entitled government officials "and all who passed as such" to
free lodging and food for three days a year in an Armenian home, was
benign compared to the dreaded kishlak, or winter-quartering tax,
whereby - in return for a fee pocketed by the vali - a Kurd was given
the right to quarter himself and his cattle in Armenian homes during
the long winter months, which often extended to half the year. The
fact that Armenian dwellings were none too spacious and the Kurdish
way of life exceptionally crude proved the least of the burden.
Knowing that the unarmed Armenians had neither physical nor legal
redress, a Kurd, armed to the teeth, could not only make free with his
host's possessions but if the fancy struck him could rape and kidnap
his women and girls as well."
Marjorie Housepian wrote about the Armenian ?rebellions? as follows:
?After the Treaty of Berlin, Hamid defiantly gerrymandered the
boundaries in the northern provinces, usurped Armenian lands, moved in
more Kurds, and increased the proportion of Moslems. When the
Armenians were driven to protest to Britain that the Porte was
breaking the terms of the treaty, Hamid denounced them as traitors
conspiring with foreigners to destroy the empire. Yet it was not
until 1887 that a number of Armenian leaders, despairing of every
other means, organized the first of two Armenian revolutionary parties
? the second was organized in 1890. The Church discouraged
revolutionary activity, fearing that it would lead to nothing more
than intensified bloodshed, and the people were on the whole inclined
to agree with their religious leaders. Small bands of Armenian
revolutionaries nonetheless staged a number of demonstrations during
the 1890?s and gave Hamid exactly the pretext he sought. Declaring
that the only way to get rid of the Armenian question is to get rid of
the Armenians,? he proceeded to the task with every means at hand. He
sent masses of unhappy Circassians, who had themselves lately been
driven from Europe, into Eastern Anatolia ? where the Armenian
population had already been reduced by massacre and migration ? and
encouraged them, along with the Kurds, to attack village after
village. He roused the tribesmen to the kill by having his agents
spread rumors that the Armenians were about to attack them, then cited
every instance of self-defense as proof of rebellion and as an excuse
for further massacre. He sent his special Hamidieh regiments to put
down ?revolts? in such districts as Sassoun, where the Armenians were
protesting that they were unable to pay their taxes to the government
because the Kurds had left them nothing with which to pay??
Marjorie Housepian explained that the Armenians went great efforts not
to rebel. She wrote:
?In order to prove the rebelliousness of the victims it was necessary
first to provoke them into acts of self-defense, which could then be
labeled ?Insurrectionary.? A campaign of terror such as had been
practiced earlier in the Balkans was already under way in Armenian
towns and villages near the Russian border, and had been ever since
Enver?s impetuous winter offensive against the Russians had turned
into a disaster; Turkish leaders had publicly ascribed the defeat to
the perfidy of the Armenians on both sides of the Russo-Turkish
frontier. The Turkish Armenians, however, proved themselves
incredibly forbearing in the face of provocation. ?The Armenian
clergy and political leaders saw many evidences that the Turks ? were
[provoking rebellion] and they went among the people cautioning them
to be quiet and bear all insults and even outrages patiently, so as
not to give provocation,? wrote Henry Morgenthau, American Ambassador
to Turkey. ??Even though they burn a few of our villages,? these
leaders would say, ?do not retaliate for it is better than a few be
destroyed than that a whole nation be massacred.??
NOTES
[i] Isaac G, ?Turkey?s Dark Past?,
FrontPageMagazine.com, 11/22/04
[ii] Akyol M., "What's Right with Turkey",
FrontPageMagazine.com, 12/3/04
[iii] Trifkovic, S. The Sword of the Prophet: Islam:
history, theology, impact on the world, Regina
Orthodox Press, c2002
[iv] Akyol M., "What's Right with Turkey",
FrontPageMagazine.com, 12/3/04
[v] Dobkin, M., The Smyrna Affair, Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, [1st ed.] 1971
[vi] Trifkovic, S., ?Apology and Correction?,
FrontPageMagazine.com, 1/15/03
[vii] [vii] Dobkin, M., The Smyrna Affair, Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich, [1st ed.] 1971
[viii] Dobkin, M., The Smyrna Affair, Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, [1st ed.] 1971
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16317
FrontPageMagazine.com
December 16, 2004
By Gamaliel Issac
In my previous article, Turkey's Dark Past[i] I exposed the falseness
of the claims of Mr. Akyol that ?Turkey has had an Islamic heritage
free of anti-Westernism and anti-Semitism? Mr. Akyol wrote a
rebuttal, What?s Right With Turkey[ii], in which he argued that the
Turks have a great record when it comes to the Jews and that when the
Jews were expelled from Spain, they were welcomed by the Sultan. In
addition he writes that Jews expelled from Hungary in 1376, from
France by Charles VI in September 1394, and from Sicily early in the
15th century, found refuge in the Ottoman Empire.
Mustapha Akyol points out that the blood libel and other such standard
anti-Semitic nonsense was unknown in Muslim lands until the 19th
century and that these were introduced to the Middle East by the
"westernized" elite, who had been infected by the anti-Semitic plague
from its ultimate source: Europe. He points out that Mr. Salahattin
Ulkumen, Consul General at Rhodes in 1943-1944, was recognized by the
Yad Vashem as a Righteous Gentile "Hassid Umot ha'Olam" in June 1990
for his efforts to save Jews and how Marseilles vice-consul Necdet
Kent, boarded a railway car full of Jews bound for Auschwitz, risking
his own life in an attempt to persuade the Germans to send them back
to France.
How can we reconcile the refuge provided by Turkey for the Jews of
Europe and the heroic efforts made by Turkish politicians such as
Mr. Ulkumen and Mr. Kent with the atrocities committed by the Turks
against the Armenians and against the Jews of Palestine which I
described in my article, Turkey's Dark Past?
Mr. Akyol?s explanation is that what the West sees as an unjust
massacre of the Armenians was simply fighting between Turks and
Armenians. In his article What?s Right With Turkey he wrote: ?What
happened in 1915, and beforehand, was mutual killing in which the
Armenian loss was greater than that of the Muslims (Turks and Kurds),
but in which the brutality was pretty similar on both sides.? Another
rationale for the Turkish ?fighting? provided by Mr. Akyol was that of
Armenian revolutionary agitation and aid given the invading Russians
by Anatolian Armenians.
In my article Turkey's Dark Past I quote passages from Serge
Trifkovic?s book, The Sword of the Prophet[iii], which convincingly
demonstrate that what happened at Smyrna was a massacre. Mr. Akyol
dismisses my quotes from Serge Trifkovic?s book on the grounds that
Mr. Trifkovic is not a reliable source and that he is an advocate of
?aggressive Serbian nationalism, which was responsible for the ethnic
cleansing and the related war crimes committed against the Muslims of
Bosnia Herzegovina during 1992-95.? In regards to Mr. Trifkovic?s
comments about the Turkish destruction of the city of Smyrna,
Mr. Akyol writes that Smyrna was an Ottoman city that was liberated
from the occupying Greek army, an army that had committed atrocities
against the Turks while occupying the city.
Mr. Akyol addressed my arguments about the role of Islam in the
massacre of the Armenians by referring the reader to two articles he
has written, two articles which do shed light on the massacres of the
Armenians but not in the way he intended.
In this article I will point out the errors in Mr. Akyol?s arguments
and provide an alternative explanation for the paradox of Turkish
tolerance to the Jews of Europe and cruelty to the Armenian
Christians. In addition I will discuss the paradox of the refuge
given the European Jews by the Turks in Anatolia in the context of the
intolerance of the Turks towards the Jews of Palestine. Finally I
will discuss the relevance of Turkish history to the question of
whether or not Turkey should be accepted into the European Union.
Smyrna, A Greek or an Ottoman City?
Mustafa Akyol wrote that[iv] ?The truth is that Smyrna (known as Izmir
in Turkish) was an Ottoman city that included a Greek quarter, and the
Turks were not invading Smyrna, they were liberating the city from the
occupying Greek army.?
Mr. Akyol?s argument that Smyrna was an Ottoman and not a Greek city
ignores over a thousand years of history. According to the
Encyclopedia Brittanica Online:
?Greek settlement is first clearly attested by the presence of pottery
dating from about 1000 BC. According to the Greek historian Herodotus
, the Greek city was founded by Aeolians but soon was seized by
Ionians. From modest beginnings, it grew into a stately city in the
7th century, with massive fortifications and blocks of two-storied
houses. Captured by Alyattes of Lydia about 600 BC, it ceased to
exist as a city for about 300 years until it was refounded by either
Alexander the Great or his lieutenants in the 4th century BC at a new
site on and around Mount Pagus. It soon emerged as one of the
principal cities of Asia Minor and was later the centre of a civil
diocese in the Roman province of Asia, vying with Ephesus and Pergamum
for the title ?first city of Asia.? Roman emperors visited there, and
it was celebrated for its wealth, beauty, library, school of medicine,
and rhetorical tradition. The stream of Meles is associated in local
tradition with Homer, who is reputed to have been born by its banks.
Smyrna was one of the early seats of Christianity.
Capital of the naval theme (province) of Samos under the Byzantine
emperors, Smyrna was taken by the Turkmen Aydin principality in the
early 14th century AD. After being conquered in turn by the crusaders
sponsored by Pope Clement VI and the Central Asian conqueror Timur
(Tamerlane), it was annexed to the Ottoman Empire about 1425. Although
severely damaged by earthquakes in 1688 and 1778, it remained a
prosperous Ottoman port with a large European population.
Izmir [Smyrna] was occupied by Greek forces in May 1919 and recaptured
by Turkish forces under Mustafa Kemal (later Kemal Atatürk) on
September 9, 1922."
One problem with the encyclopedic summary above is that as a necessary
consequence of its brevity we do not realize what the events described
really entail. Here is what Marjorie Housepian Dobkin, wrote about
the first conquest of Smyrna in 1402 by Tamerlane and his Muslim army
in her book The Smyrna Affair[v].
?In 1402 Tamerlaine butchered the inhabitants and razed the buildings
in an orgy of cruelty that would become legendary. While the
inhabitants slept, his men stealthily undermined the city's wall and
propped them up with timber smeared with pitch. Then he applied the
torch, the walls sank into ditches prepared to receive them, and the
city lay open to the invader. Smyrna's would be defenders, the
Knights of Saint John, escaped to their ships by fighting their way
through a mob of panic-stricken inhabitants. They escaped just in
time, for Tamerlaine ordered a thousand prisoners beheaded and used
their skulls to raise a monument in his honor. He did not linger over
his victory - it was his custom to ravage and ride on. He rode on to
Ephesus, where the city's children were sent out to greet and appease
him with song. "What is this noise?" he roared, and ordered his
horsemen to trample the children to death.?
Attacking the Messenger
In an attempt to refute my quotes from Mr. Serge Trifkovic?s book, The
Sword of Islam, Mustafa Akyol accused him of supporting Serbian war
criminals and of being ?one of the leaders of the Bosnian Serbs during
the years of ethnic cleansing.? These accusations are recycled
accusations that were made previously by Stephen Schwartz and that
Mr. Trifkovic has already answered in an article in Frontpage Magazine
(see Reply to Stephen Schwartz By Serge Trifkovic[vi]). In the text
preceding that article, David Horowitz apologized to Mr. Trifkovic for
the false accusations made by Steven Schwartz. Mr. Horowitz wrote:
?Frontpage regrets characterizations of Serge Trifkovic, author of
Sword of Islam, that were made in an article by Stephen Schwartz
(CAIR's Axis of Evil) to the effect that Trifkovic, is an Islamophobe,
is associated with Pravda or Antiwar.com, and "was the main advocate
in the West for the regime of Slobodan Milosevic." Serge Trifkovic is
not associated with either Pravda or Antiwar.com. He was not a
supporter of Slobodan Milosevic. He is not an Islamophobe nor would
Frontpage have given extensive space to a summary of his book if he
were.?
Corroboration of Mr. Trifkovic
There are independent sources that corroborate the excerpts of
Mr. Trifkovic?s book that I included in my previous article. Here are
a few accounts that corroborate Mr. Trifkovic?s account of the Turkish
massacre of the inhabitants of Smyrna. I include the following
excerpt from Marjorie Housepian?s book, The Smyrna Affair[vii], in
particular to answer the Turkish propaganda that the Greeks, not the
Turks, set fire to the city.
?Anita Chakerian, a young teacher at the [American Collegiate]
Institute, saw the Turkish guards dragging into the building large
sacks, which they deposited in various corners. They were bringing
rice and potatoes the men said, because they knew the people were
hungry and would soon have nothing left to eat. The sacks were not to
be opened until the bread was exhausted. Such unexpected generosity
led one of the sailors to investigate; the bags held gunpowder and
dynamite. On Tuesday night, wagons bearing gasoline drums again moved
through the deserted streets around the College?
At 1:00 A.M. on Wednesday, Mabel Kalfa, a Greek nurse at the
Collegiate Institute, saw three fires in the neighborhood. At 4:00
A.M. fires in a small wooden hut adjoining the College wall and on a
veranda near the school were put out by firemen. At noon on Wednesday
a sailor beckoned Mabel Kalfa and Miss Mills to the window in the
dining room. ?Look there,? he said. ?The Turks are setting the
fires!? The women could see three Turkish officers silhouetted in the
window of a photographer?s shop opposite the school. Moments after
the men emerged, flames poured from the roof and the windows? Said
Miss Mills: ?I could plainly see the Turks carrying tins of petroleum
into the houses, from which, in each instance, fire burst forth
immediately afterward.?
It was not long before all of Smyrna was on fire. Ms. Housepian
writes:
?The spectacle along the waterfront haunted Melvin Johnson for the
rest of his life. ?When we left it was just getting dusk,? he
remembers. ?As we were pulling out I?ll never forget the screams. As
far as we could go you could hear ?em screaming and hollering, and the
fire was going on? most pitiful thing you ever saw in your life. In
your life. Could never hear nothing like it any other place in the
world, I don?t think. And the city was set in a ? a kind of a hill,
and the fire was on back coming this way toward the ship. That was
the only way the people could go, toward the waterfront. A lot of ?em
were jumping in, committing suicide, It was a sight all right.?
Ms. Housepian wrote how:
?On the Iron Duke, Major Arthur Maxwell of His Majesty?s Royal
Marines, watching through binoculars, distinguished figures pouring
out buckets of liquid among the refugees. At first he took them to be
firemen attempting to extinguish the flames, then he realized, to his
horror, that every time they appeared there was a sudden burst of
flames. ?My God! They?re trying to burn the refugees!? he exclaimed.
Ms. Housepian included the account of reporter John Clayton who wrote:
?Except for the squalid Turkish quarter, Smyrna has ceased to exist.
The problem for the minorities is here solved for all time. No doubt
remains as to the origin of the fire?The torch was applied by Turkish
regular soldiers.?
The Rebellion Excuse:
Mr. Akyol started his article by excusing the Armenian Genocide with
the excuse that the Armenians rebelled against the Turks and helped
the Russians.
One reason that this is a poor excuse is that the Armenians had every
reason to rebel against the Turks. Marjorie Housepian[viii],
describes what Dhimmi life was like under the Turks.
"Beginning in the fifteenth century, Ottoman policy drove the most
unmanageable elements, such as the Kurds, into the six Armenian
provinces in the isolated northeast. Thereafter, the Armenians were
not only subjected to the iniquitous tax-farming system (applicable to
the Moslem peasants as well), the head tax, and the dubious privilege
of the military exemption tax, but also to impositions that gave the
semi barbarous tribes license to abuse them. The hospitality tax,
which entitled government officials "and all who passed as such" to
free lodging and food for three days a year in an Armenian home, was
benign compared to the dreaded kishlak, or winter-quartering tax,
whereby - in return for a fee pocketed by the vali - a Kurd was given
the right to quarter himself and his cattle in Armenian homes during
the long winter months, which often extended to half the year. The
fact that Armenian dwellings were none too spacious and the Kurdish
way of life exceptionally crude proved the least of the burden.
Knowing that the unarmed Armenians had neither physical nor legal
redress, a Kurd, armed to the teeth, could not only make free with his
host's possessions but if the fancy struck him could rape and kidnap
his women and girls as well."
Marjorie Housepian wrote about the Armenian ?rebellions? as follows:
?After the Treaty of Berlin, Hamid defiantly gerrymandered the
boundaries in the northern provinces, usurped Armenian lands, moved in
more Kurds, and increased the proportion of Moslems. When the
Armenians were driven to protest to Britain that the Porte was
breaking the terms of the treaty, Hamid denounced them as traitors
conspiring with foreigners to destroy the empire. Yet it was not
until 1887 that a number of Armenian leaders, despairing of every
other means, organized the first of two Armenian revolutionary parties
? the second was organized in 1890. The Church discouraged
revolutionary activity, fearing that it would lead to nothing more
than intensified bloodshed, and the people were on the whole inclined
to agree with their religious leaders. Small bands of Armenian
revolutionaries nonetheless staged a number of demonstrations during
the 1890?s and gave Hamid exactly the pretext he sought. Declaring
that the only way to get rid of the Armenian question is to get rid of
the Armenians,? he proceeded to the task with every means at hand. He
sent masses of unhappy Circassians, who had themselves lately been
driven from Europe, into Eastern Anatolia ? where the Armenian
population had already been reduced by massacre and migration ? and
encouraged them, along with the Kurds, to attack village after
village. He roused the tribesmen to the kill by having his agents
spread rumors that the Armenians were about to attack them, then cited
every instance of self-defense as proof of rebellion and as an excuse
for further massacre. He sent his special Hamidieh regiments to put
down ?revolts? in such districts as Sassoun, where the Armenians were
protesting that they were unable to pay their taxes to the government
because the Kurds had left them nothing with which to pay??
Marjorie Housepian explained that the Armenians went great efforts not
to rebel. She wrote:
?In order to prove the rebelliousness of the victims it was necessary
first to provoke them into acts of self-defense, which could then be
labeled ?Insurrectionary.? A campaign of terror such as had been
practiced earlier in the Balkans was already under way in Armenian
towns and villages near the Russian border, and had been ever since
Enver?s impetuous winter offensive against the Russians had turned
into a disaster; Turkish leaders had publicly ascribed the defeat to
the perfidy of the Armenians on both sides of the Russo-Turkish
frontier. The Turkish Armenians, however, proved themselves
incredibly forbearing in the face of provocation. ?The Armenian
clergy and political leaders saw many evidences that the Turks ? were
[provoking rebellion] and they went among the people cautioning them
to be quiet and bear all insults and even outrages patiently, so as
not to give provocation,? wrote Henry Morgenthau, American Ambassador
to Turkey. ??Even though they burn a few of our villages,? these
leaders would say, ?do not retaliate for it is better than a few be
destroyed than that a whole nation be massacred.??
NOTES
[i] Isaac G, ?Turkey?s Dark Past?,
FrontPageMagazine.com, 11/22/04
[ii] Akyol M., "What's Right with Turkey",
FrontPageMagazine.com, 12/3/04
[iii] Trifkovic, S. The Sword of the Prophet: Islam:
history, theology, impact on the world, Regina
Orthodox Press, c2002
[iv] Akyol M., "What's Right with Turkey",
FrontPageMagazine.com, 12/3/04
[v] Dobkin, M., The Smyrna Affair, Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, [1st ed.] 1971
[vi] Trifkovic, S., ?Apology and Correction?,
FrontPageMagazine.com, 1/15/03
[vii] [vii] Dobkin, M., The Smyrna Affair, Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich, [1st ed.] 1971
[viii] Dobkin, M., The Smyrna Affair, Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, [1st ed.] 1971
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16317