Tweet
Solidarity with the Victims of All Genocides
(supported by Nor Serount Cultural Association)
c/o The Temple of Peace, Cardiff
[email protected]
0044 7718982732
UK Prime Minister,: Massacres of Armenians and others " an appalling
crime against humanity"
David Cameron, the new UK Prime Minister has declared that "The
massacres of Armenians and others in Anatolia during and after the First
World War were an appalling crime against humanity ...., and should be
recognised as such". He made this statement through his office in a
reply to Eilian Williams on the 13th November 2007. This goes further
than any reply from the previous Labour Government. He will be called to
honour the committment that (the crime) "should be recognised as such"
by attending the Genocide Monument in Cardiff.
We are also writing to him with thius suggestion:
"As the UK is such a firm supporter and ally of Turkey, the UK
government should undertake, in conjunction with Germany and the EU as
well as the US, to assume a substantial part of Turkey's liabilities for
reparations for the Crime against Humanity and Genocide of 1915-23. This
assumption would provide a quantum leap in the improvement of
Turkish-Armenian relations. Reparations would be of two forms ,
external, to the Armenian Republic, and internal, to reconstruct and
restore "Turkish" Armenia.
The initial amount of money required for this latter project would
not be great eg the re-constuction of 500 Churches/Armenian Cultural
Centres each by the UK, Germany, EU and the US,(probably only 300
million GB Pounds each for each of the four above parties)as well as a
similar amount to finance Armenian language education for the one
million Muslim and crypto-Armenians, who may be considering returning
to Christianity and overt Armenian identity given the right political
climate"
Below is his reply when he was leader of the Opposition in 2007, and our
initial communication on the Mudros anniversary.
------------------------------------ ----------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: CAMERON, David
To: Eilian Williams
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 4:17 PM
Subject: RE: Armenian Genocide recognition in the UK
Dear Miss Williams,( note: English politicians have no idea of the
gender of Welsh Christian names)
Thank you for emailing David Cameron - I am replying on his behalf. I do
apologise for the delay in my reply.
The massacres of Armenians and others in Anatolia during and after the
First World War were an appalling crime against humanity and a terrible
tragedy for the Armenian people, and should be recognised as such.
However, we do not believe that blocking Turkey's entry into the EU
would be the right course at all. First, no British government has, so
far, found the evidence about those dreadful events unequivocal enough
to categorise them as genocide under the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide.
(this ignores the fact that no experts have ever been consulted)
Secondly, we believe that the best way to arrive at the historical truth
and to reconcile the descendants of perpetrators and victims is for
there to be a free and open historical debate. We believe that the best
way of achieving that is to continue to push the cause of Turkish
accession. The Copenhagen criteria for EU membership demand that a
country should be, in effect, a liberal democracy subject to the rule of
law before it can accede to the European Union. Those criteria must be
wholly fulfilled before any country can join the EU.
The process of change in society and politics which that involves is the
best context for Turkey to examine its past in this area. The decision
to drop charges against Orhan Pamuk concerning his remarks about the
treatment of Armenians and Kurds by the Ottoman Empire shows that the
prospect of EU membership is already having a powerful effect. Lectures
from foreign governments or parliament, however, are unlikely to create
a sympathetic climate in Turkey for a resolution of this matter.
We look forward to a further widening of debate and a deepening
understanding of the terrible events of the past as the course of
Turkey's accession to the European Union progresses.
Thank you once again for your email.
Yours sincerely,
David Beal
Correspondence Secretary
David Cameron's Office
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
--------------------------------------------- -------------------
This was the original communication to Mr Cameron
30th October 2007
Dear Mr Cameron,
Tonight is the 89th anniversary of the signing of the Mudros Armstice by
the allies(principally Britain), by which former Turkish-controlled
Armenia was betrayed and was to be erased from the maps of the world. I
hope that you may find time to consider our past failings towards
Armenia, and whether we have a great responsibility to the remains of
this nation, forced to live in a tiny land-locked strip of mountanous
land and blockaded by its neighbours,
Regards,
Eilian Williams
Britain's many betrayals of Armenia(1878-1918)
1 The betrayal of 1878
Britain's foreign policy objectives in the region in the nineteenth
century was geared to bolstering Turkish rule in Armenia.. The British
Ambassador to Turkey, Sir A.H. Layard commented, that "Russian conquest
of Armenia would be the greatest blow ever struck at the British Empire"
(Dwight E Lee: "Great Britain and the Cyprus Convention policy of
1878"). Turkey's geographical position with regard to India and Russia
was unique
Russian gains in 1877 of Batum, Kars and Ardahan horrified the British.
The security of Armenians was enshrined in the Treaty of San Stefano
signed by Turkey and Russia. British diplomacy suceeded in replacing the
relevant clauses of this treaty by the Treaty of Berlin(13th july) and
the Anglo Tturkish Cyprus convention of 1878(4th june). Article 61of the
Treaty of Berlin had replaced Article 16 of the Treaty of San Stefano.
The guarantees of Armenian security was no longer made to a powerful
neighbour who could enforce them .Eventually both the Cyprus Convention
and the Treaty of Berlin utterly failed Armenia.
"It was the action of this country which deprived Armenians of the
Russian protection guarranteed by the Treaty of San Stefano" James
Bryce,MP for Aberdeen reminded parliament during the 1894-96 massacres
In 1918 a FO memorandum maintained that Britain was "bound, perhaps
juridically and certainly morally" by article 61 of the Berlin Treaty.
David Lloyd George admitted in 1938 (in "The Truth about Peace
Treaties") " Had it not been for our sinister intervention, the great
majority of the Armenians would have been placed, by the Treaty of San
Stefano in 1878, under the protection of the Russian flag.... The action
of the British government led inevitably to the terrible massacres of
1895-97 ,1909 and worst of all to the holocausts of 1915
2 The betrayal of 1894-96
During this time when 300.000 Armenians were massacred, despite
widespread unease in Britain, nothing was done to force the Sultan to
end the massacres. According to Gladstone, the British government had
shrunk from "duty and honour." The Duke of Argyll concluded that the
massacres were the terrible consequences of Britain's selfish folly.
That these holocausts were but the necessary price to be paid for a
policy essential to British national interests was an "abominable" and
an "immoral" doctorine which had plunged this country into a "national
humiliation". Britain was under the heaviest national obligations
arising out of her active and repeated interventions in favour of the
Ottoman government.These obligations were "patent and undeniable"
Public meetings organised to protest against atrocities in Armenia were
discouraged by the government. (the Bishop of Manchester had been told
the government did not look favourably on such meetings.)
3 The betrayal of 1909. The British government did not intervene either
when 30,000 were massacred in Adana.
4 The 1913 warnings ignored by the government
Fears of widespread massacres of Armenians were expressed by Dr
C.A.Gates, one of the principals of Robert College, a missionary College
in Turkish Armenia A member of the Foreign Office staff minuted the
dilemma of the British government: "What Dr Gates says is probably quite
true, but it is impossible to prevent massacres in Armenia except by the
occupation of those provinces by Russian troops, which is undesirable
for other reasons".A Scheme of reforms for the Eastern Provinces was
initiated by Russia at this time. When the Turkish government asked for
17 British advisers and inspectors for these provinces, Sir Edward Grey,
the Foreign secretary refused the request. However he maintained that
the only policy to which Britain could become a party was "one directed
to avoid the collapse and partition of Asiatic Turkey" The excuse used
for this was the feelings of Moslem subjects in India.
When the Archbishop of Cantebury wrote to Grey about the peril in which
Armenians believed themselves to be , the latter replied that he was
"glad to be able to say that this state of alarm was not warranted"
While in the pre war period humanitarians in Britain pressed for the
effective improvement of the condition of the Armenians, the Foreign
Office would, for alleged national interests, do no more than make
representations as an aquit de conscience
-------------------------------------- --------------------------
Turkey enters the war driven by their pan Turkish aspirations
In August 1914 Turkey secured a secret deal with Germany, wherby Turkey
would enter any conflict in return for a correction in her Eastern
border which would bring into direct contact with the Moslems of Russia.
Separating Turkey from the Moslems of Russia was the mass of the
Armenian people, on whose behalf protestations of the European powers
had irritated Turkey for so long. Their land and property might now be
used to placate the thousands of discontented Moslems who had become
refugees from the Balkan wars.
------------------------------------------- ---------------------
5 Britain uses the Genocide for war propoganda
After the genocide began in 1915 the government made use of this to
stimulate the war effort. It was Lord Bryce who brought the genocide to
public notice. The Foreign Office responded with the publication of the
"Blue Book" in 1916.
During the war the Armenian question had served a purpose for the
government-to show the people that they were fighting for justice and
against evil, and to encourage the war effort, and also to encourage
American help in the war..Asquith and Baldwin stated in 1924 that the
Blue Book "was used for Allied propoganda in 1916-17 and had an
influence upon the ultimate desicion of President Wilson to enter the
war" By 1918 the Armenian question had fulfilled its function and would
be of no more use.
The Armenian genocide was also used by the British government to counter
charges that Britain was fighting an imperialistic war with a view to
annexations.Britain had to devise war aims which would show that British
policy was not completely based on imperialist greed
6 Promise of the Allies (unkept): The declaration of 24th may 1915 "The
governments of Britain France and Russia will hold the members of the
Ottoman government personaly responsable for the massacres,which they
called " New Crimes against Humanity and Civilization"
7 Rejection by the British government of requests for Relief :There
was a request by the Russian Ambassador for a half share of one million
francs for relief of Armenian Refugees in 1915 in Syria and Mesopotamia.
The source of the fund should be kept secret to avoid the danger of
fresh violence against Armenians.. The minutes written in the Foreign
Office reveal:"The whole object of making such a donation would be the
effect in the USA etc and it would be valueless if kept secret". A more
senior official addedd "I should be disinclined to make any donation for
the benefit of Armmenians in Turkey without publicly stating that we are
doing it" The reply to the Ambassador was that it did not affect
"British Narional interests" in such a way as to justify a grant from
public funds.The treasury had before in august september 1915 refused to
contribute towards Armenian relief.
8 Rejection of Armenian help in 1915
In 1915 the military authorities in Britain consistently refused to
provide arms and training to Armenian volunteers in the diaspora
The Armenians of Egypt wanted authorisation of the British
government,arms that could be spared, permission to congregate in
Cyprus, assistance in transport and a small allied contingent (to be
under British conbtrol). Volunteers were to come from Egypt, Bulgaria,
Rumania Greece America and Argentina. Grey and the Foreign Office were
against the use of Egypt as a base for Armenian volunteers (out of
consideration for Moslem feeling). The war office always rejected the
idea of the use of Armenian irregulars for a landing or rising in
Cilicia. The commander in chief of the Armed Forces in Egypt, General
Maxwell, did not share this view.
On 7 september 1915 the French Admiral on the Syrian coast cabled the
High Commisioner in Cyprus that 6,000 Armenians were bravely fighting
near the Bay of Antioch. They had asked for the removal of 5,000 their
old men, women and children to Cyprus so that the able bodied men could
copntinue fighting. The High Commisioner refused, and General Maxwell
asked the Minister of War to help. Grey, the Foreign Secretary, opposed
accepting Armenian refugees to Cyprus or Egypt because they had Moslem
Communities. So in 1915. even refuge to the famillies of those fighting
at Jebel Musa was only grudgingly given.
In 1917 however it was the British authorities who tried to recruit
Armenian manpower in the Caucasus. All proposals to form Armenian
volunteer groups under British direction were rejected.
--------------------------------------- -------------------------
The Collapse of the Russian army in 1917 precipitating British Pledges
for Armenian independence.
This worried the allies that Germany would transfer troops to the
Western Front,and Baghdad, the strategic base might comne under
threat.The collapse of the Russian Caucasian front might also open the
valuable oil reserves of Baku to the Central Powers when shortage of oil
was tending to weaken their war machine in Europe. The military balance
in the Middle East might easily be tipped against Britain. The foremost
concern was the provision of military support for troops in North Persia
and Mesopotamia.
On 15th october 1917, General Barter, Head of the British Mission at the
Russian General HQ informed the Chief of the Imperial General Staff
(CIGS) that the difficulty of getting military support for General Maude
in Mesopotamia might be solved. His staff officer, after making
extensive enquiries in the Caucasus had come to the conclusion that the
only really loyal troops in the Caucasus were the Armenians. Of the
150,000 Armenians fighting in the Russiuan armies, only 35,000 were on
the Caucasus front.General Barter gained the agreement of the CIGS and
the war cabinet discussed the question on 23rd october 1917. They
authorised the Sec.of State for Foreign Affairs to concert with the US
government to bring diplomatic pressure on the Russian government to
deploy Armenian troops serving on the Eastern Front to the Caucasus, and
allow for the recruitment and formation of Armenian units for service on
the Caucasian front.Meanwhile discipline broke down in Russia and
fighting stopped..
Six Armenian battalions just formed in the Caucasus refused to be sent
to the Persian front in october until the political status of Armenia
was decided upon.. While the War cabinet and the British military
authorities wanted the Armenians to fight in northern Persia,Mesopotamia
and the Caucasus, these Armenians were naturally anxious to safeguard
the prospects of their own homeland.They did not know what objectives
they were being asked to fight for.At the Foreign Office it was the view
of Lord Robert Cecil and Sir Ronald Graham that there was little
prospect of inducing the Armenians to make any further efforts unless
the future of Armenia was guaranteed by the Western Powers.It is in this
context that the pledges on Armenian Independence given by Balfour and
Lloyd George are to be uderstood.
-------------------------------------- --------------------------
9 British war Pledges(unfulfilled)
Pledge by Asquith in the Guildhall in 1916 Asquith stated that the
British government was "resolved" that after the war there would be an
era of "liberty" for the Armenians.
In 1917 Balfour began mentioning the freedom of Armenia as a war
aim.Lloyd George had mentioned this on 29th june 1917 in Glasgow and in
the House of Commons in december 1917."Mesopotamia and Armenia would
never be restored to the tyrrany of the Turk" In bringing in the
liberation of Armenia, a land where Britain had no territorrial
interests, and tying it in to the liberation of a strategically
important , oil rich Mesopotamia, the British leaders could confuse the
issues, silence critics who accused them of fighting an imperialist war,
and could give notions of idealism and humanity to their war aims. At
the same time,in the winter of 1917-18 Britain secretly considered
making a separate peace with Turkey. Lloyd George was quite willing to
abandon the Caucasus, including Armenia, in order to acheive peace with
Turkey.
In july 1918, Balfour in the Commons , Lloyd George replying to
Manchester Armenians and Lord Cecil writing to Bryce all pledged a
future liberated Armenia.A Pledge by Balfour in a telegram to Aneurin
Williams, referred to Lord Cecil's letter published in the press on 3
october 1918 which "reaffirmed" the "government's intention to liberate
Armenia"
These pledges were according to Lloyd George "intended to have a
propoganda effect". During a supreme war Council meeting he said "nobody
was bound by a speech"
A few weeks before his death, Lord Bryce wrote about the threat of
extinction of the Armenians:"of the nation which the Allies caused to
fight for them and have now deserted"
In the nineteenth century Britain had strongly resented Russian presence
in Armenia as a threat to her position in the Persian Gulf. Once Britain
had gained control of Lower Mesopotamia, the importance of Armenia would
become superfluous
The Archbishop of Cantebury had jotted down the main points of a major
speech he was to make in the House of Lords together with the war-time
statements made by Lloyd George. One sentence reads " My fear is that
the story of these horrors and our promises may be forgotten in
resettlement"
Contribution of Armenians to the war Lord Cecil recognised that
Armenian forces took over from the Russians for five months, february
till june 1918 on the Caucasian Front, and delayed the advance of the
Turks,thus rending an important service to the British Army in
Mesopotamia. In fact few Russians were fighting on the Turkish Eastern
Front after the spring of 1917, and the Armenians fought alone,
sustained only by the "Pledges" of British Politicians for a future free
Armenia
10 The sum of £5,000,000 in Turkish gold was deposited by the Turkish
Government in Berlin in 1916, and taken over by the Allies after the
armstice, was Armenian money confiscated from deported and
massacred.Armenians. This sum was distributed among Allied nationals
having claims on Turkey. The Armenian Community are not permitted to
claim compensatoion for their losses!
----------------------------------------- -----------------------
10 The betrayal of the The Mudros Armstice(30th october 1918) . This
Armstice did not contain conditions on Armenia.
It left the six Armenian villayets under the sovereignty of Turkey.
No provision was made for the repartiation of Armenian refugees and
deportees to their homes.
There was no occupation of statregic points by the Allies and no
provision for the release of women and children.
There was no disarming of the Turkish army.
It would have been possible to gain concessions surely from the Turks,
as 3 out of 4 proposals for peace from Turkish sources included
concessions on Armenia.The armstice was hastily signed in order to
ensure that the victorious fleet sailing into Constantinople would be
commanded by a British rather than a French admiral!
In order to secure the Dardanelle straits, Palestine and Mesopotamia for
Britain, concessions were given to the Turks over Armenia.
The draft terms of the armstice were discussed in six war cabinet
meetings. The British priorities were set: there was no mention of
Armenia at all.Almost all the concesions made at Mudros were at the
expense of the Armenians.The conditions were set which eventually
enabled the Turks to gain complete control of Armenia and even gain
part of "Russian" Armenia.
---------------------------------------- ------------------------
A Labour Party Resolution on Armenia In february 1920 the Labour
Party's Advisory Committee on International Questions passed a
"Resolution on Armenia" protesting "against the treatment of Armenia by
the Allied Powers" During the war, the resolution claimed, the Ottoman
government had once and for all forfited any right to rule the Armenian
provinces of Turkey by the "deliberately organised" attempt "to
exterminate the Armenian population" The evidence was "abundant and
conclusive" and the British government had published it in a Blue Book
Yet in negotiating the armstice the Allied governments had left the
Armenian provinces under the Turkish authorities, while Turkish rule was
immediately terminated in the Arab provinces.
The resolution calaimed that: .... "the policy of the Allied Governments
since the armstice.... intends to detach from Turkey and attach to
themselves under the form of mandates conferred by the League of Nations
all those provinces of the Ottoman Empire where they have financial,
economic or strategic interests, while no provision is being made for
Armenia, the one region of Turkey which unquestionably ought to be
released from Turkish sovereignty"
(Labour Party, London, Advisory Commitee on International Questions,
Minutes and Memoranda 1918-234 (LP/IAC/1/91 and ibid. no 170)
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
(supported by Nor Serount Cultural Association)
c/o The Temple of Peace, Cardiff
[email protected]
0044 7718982732
UK Prime Minister,: Massacres of Armenians and others " an appalling
crime against humanity"
David Cameron, the new UK Prime Minister has declared that "The
massacres of Armenians and others in Anatolia during and after the First
World War were an appalling crime against humanity ...., and should be
recognised as such". He made this statement through his office in a
reply to Eilian Williams on the 13th November 2007. This goes further
than any reply from the previous Labour Government. He will be called to
honour the committment that (the crime) "should be recognised as such"
by attending the Genocide Monument in Cardiff.
We are also writing to him with thius suggestion:
"As the UK is such a firm supporter and ally of Turkey, the UK
government should undertake, in conjunction with Germany and the EU as
well as the US, to assume a substantial part of Turkey's liabilities for
reparations for the Crime against Humanity and Genocide of 1915-23. This
assumption would provide a quantum leap in the improvement of
Turkish-Armenian relations. Reparations would be of two forms ,
external, to the Armenian Republic, and internal, to reconstruct and
restore "Turkish" Armenia.
The initial amount of money required for this latter project would
not be great eg the re-constuction of 500 Churches/Armenian Cultural
Centres each by the UK, Germany, EU and the US,(probably only 300
million GB Pounds each for each of the four above parties)as well as a
similar amount to finance Armenian language education for the one
million Muslim and crypto-Armenians, who may be considering returning
to Christianity and overt Armenian identity given the right political
climate"
Below is his reply when he was leader of the Opposition in 2007, and our
initial communication on the Mudros anniversary.
------------------------------------ ----------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: CAMERON, David
To: Eilian Williams
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 4:17 PM
Subject: RE: Armenian Genocide recognition in the UK
Dear Miss Williams,( note: English politicians have no idea of the
gender of Welsh Christian names)
Thank you for emailing David Cameron - I am replying on his behalf. I do
apologise for the delay in my reply.
The massacres of Armenians and others in Anatolia during and after the
First World War were an appalling crime against humanity and a terrible
tragedy for the Armenian people, and should be recognised as such.
However, we do not believe that blocking Turkey's entry into the EU
would be the right course at all. First, no British government has, so
far, found the evidence about those dreadful events unequivocal enough
to categorise them as genocide under the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide.
(this ignores the fact that no experts have ever been consulted)
Secondly, we believe that the best way to arrive at the historical truth
and to reconcile the descendants of perpetrators and victims is for
there to be a free and open historical debate. We believe that the best
way of achieving that is to continue to push the cause of Turkish
accession. The Copenhagen criteria for EU membership demand that a
country should be, in effect, a liberal democracy subject to the rule of
law before it can accede to the European Union. Those criteria must be
wholly fulfilled before any country can join the EU.
The process of change in society and politics which that involves is the
best context for Turkey to examine its past in this area. The decision
to drop charges against Orhan Pamuk concerning his remarks about the
treatment of Armenians and Kurds by the Ottoman Empire shows that the
prospect of EU membership is already having a powerful effect. Lectures
from foreign governments or parliament, however, are unlikely to create
a sympathetic climate in Turkey for a resolution of this matter.
We look forward to a further widening of debate and a deepening
understanding of the terrible events of the past as the course of
Turkey's accession to the European Union progresses.
Thank you once again for your email.
Yours sincerely,
David Beal
Correspondence Secretary
David Cameron's Office
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
--------------------------------------------- -------------------
This was the original communication to Mr Cameron
30th October 2007
Dear Mr Cameron,
Tonight is the 89th anniversary of the signing of the Mudros Armstice by
the allies(principally Britain), by which former Turkish-controlled
Armenia was betrayed and was to be erased from the maps of the world. I
hope that you may find time to consider our past failings towards
Armenia, and whether we have a great responsibility to the remains of
this nation, forced to live in a tiny land-locked strip of mountanous
land and blockaded by its neighbours,
Regards,
Eilian Williams
Britain's many betrayals of Armenia(1878-1918)
1 The betrayal of 1878
Britain's foreign policy objectives in the region in the nineteenth
century was geared to bolstering Turkish rule in Armenia.. The British
Ambassador to Turkey, Sir A.H. Layard commented, that "Russian conquest
of Armenia would be the greatest blow ever struck at the British Empire"
(Dwight E Lee: "Great Britain and the Cyprus Convention policy of
1878"). Turkey's geographical position with regard to India and Russia
was unique
Russian gains in 1877 of Batum, Kars and Ardahan horrified the British.
The security of Armenians was enshrined in the Treaty of San Stefano
signed by Turkey and Russia. British diplomacy suceeded in replacing the
relevant clauses of this treaty by the Treaty of Berlin(13th july) and
the Anglo Tturkish Cyprus convention of 1878(4th june). Article 61of the
Treaty of Berlin had replaced Article 16 of the Treaty of San Stefano.
The guarantees of Armenian security was no longer made to a powerful
neighbour who could enforce them .Eventually both the Cyprus Convention
and the Treaty of Berlin utterly failed Armenia.
"It was the action of this country which deprived Armenians of the
Russian protection guarranteed by the Treaty of San Stefano" James
Bryce,MP for Aberdeen reminded parliament during the 1894-96 massacres
In 1918 a FO memorandum maintained that Britain was "bound, perhaps
juridically and certainly morally" by article 61 of the Berlin Treaty.
David Lloyd George admitted in 1938 (in "The Truth about Peace
Treaties") " Had it not been for our sinister intervention, the great
majority of the Armenians would have been placed, by the Treaty of San
Stefano in 1878, under the protection of the Russian flag.... The action
of the British government led inevitably to the terrible massacres of
1895-97 ,1909 and worst of all to the holocausts of 1915
2 The betrayal of 1894-96
During this time when 300.000 Armenians were massacred, despite
widespread unease in Britain, nothing was done to force the Sultan to
end the massacres. According to Gladstone, the British government had
shrunk from "duty and honour." The Duke of Argyll concluded that the
massacres were the terrible consequences of Britain's selfish folly.
That these holocausts were but the necessary price to be paid for a
policy essential to British national interests was an "abominable" and
an "immoral" doctorine which had plunged this country into a "national
humiliation". Britain was under the heaviest national obligations
arising out of her active and repeated interventions in favour of the
Ottoman government.These obligations were "patent and undeniable"
Public meetings organised to protest against atrocities in Armenia were
discouraged by the government. (the Bishop of Manchester had been told
the government did not look favourably on such meetings.)
3 The betrayal of 1909. The British government did not intervene either
when 30,000 were massacred in Adana.
4 The 1913 warnings ignored by the government
Fears of widespread massacres of Armenians were expressed by Dr
C.A.Gates, one of the principals of Robert College, a missionary College
in Turkish Armenia A member of the Foreign Office staff minuted the
dilemma of the British government: "What Dr Gates says is probably quite
true, but it is impossible to prevent massacres in Armenia except by the
occupation of those provinces by Russian troops, which is undesirable
for other reasons".A Scheme of reforms for the Eastern Provinces was
initiated by Russia at this time. When the Turkish government asked for
17 British advisers and inspectors for these provinces, Sir Edward Grey,
the Foreign secretary refused the request. However he maintained that
the only policy to which Britain could become a party was "one directed
to avoid the collapse and partition of Asiatic Turkey" The excuse used
for this was the feelings of Moslem subjects in India.
When the Archbishop of Cantebury wrote to Grey about the peril in which
Armenians believed themselves to be , the latter replied that he was
"glad to be able to say that this state of alarm was not warranted"
While in the pre war period humanitarians in Britain pressed for the
effective improvement of the condition of the Armenians, the Foreign
Office would, for alleged national interests, do no more than make
representations as an aquit de conscience
-------------------------------------- --------------------------
Turkey enters the war driven by their pan Turkish aspirations
In August 1914 Turkey secured a secret deal with Germany, wherby Turkey
would enter any conflict in return for a correction in her Eastern
border which would bring into direct contact with the Moslems of Russia.
Separating Turkey from the Moslems of Russia was the mass of the
Armenian people, on whose behalf protestations of the European powers
had irritated Turkey for so long. Their land and property might now be
used to placate the thousands of discontented Moslems who had become
refugees from the Balkan wars.
------------------------------------------- ---------------------
5 Britain uses the Genocide for war propoganda
After the genocide began in 1915 the government made use of this to
stimulate the war effort. It was Lord Bryce who brought the genocide to
public notice. The Foreign Office responded with the publication of the
"Blue Book" in 1916.
During the war the Armenian question had served a purpose for the
government-to show the people that they were fighting for justice and
against evil, and to encourage the war effort, and also to encourage
American help in the war..Asquith and Baldwin stated in 1924 that the
Blue Book "was used for Allied propoganda in 1916-17 and had an
influence upon the ultimate desicion of President Wilson to enter the
war" By 1918 the Armenian question had fulfilled its function and would
be of no more use.
The Armenian genocide was also used by the British government to counter
charges that Britain was fighting an imperialistic war with a view to
annexations.Britain had to devise war aims which would show that British
policy was not completely based on imperialist greed
6 Promise of the Allies (unkept): The declaration of 24th may 1915 "The
governments of Britain France and Russia will hold the members of the
Ottoman government personaly responsable for the massacres,which they
called " New Crimes against Humanity and Civilization"
7 Rejection by the British government of requests for Relief :There
was a request by the Russian Ambassador for a half share of one million
francs for relief of Armenian Refugees in 1915 in Syria and Mesopotamia.
The source of the fund should be kept secret to avoid the danger of
fresh violence against Armenians.. The minutes written in the Foreign
Office reveal:"The whole object of making such a donation would be the
effect in the USA etc and it would be valueless if kept secret". A more
senior official addedd "I should be disinclined to make any donation for
the benefit of Armmenians in Turkey without publicly stating that we are
doing it" The reply to the Ambassador was that it did not affect
"British Narional interests" in such a way as to justify a grant from
public funds.The treasury had before in august september 1915 refused to
contribute towards Armenian relief.
8 Rejection of Armenian help in 1915
In 1915 the military authorities in Britain consistently refused to
provide arms and training to Armenian volunteers in the diaspora
The Armenians of Egypt wanted authorisation of the British
government,arms that could be spared, permission to congregate in
Cyprus, assistance in transport and a small allied contingent (to be
under British conbtrol). Volunteers were to come from Egypt, Bulgaria,
Rumania Greece America and Argentina. Grey and the Foreign Office were
against the use of Egypt as a base for Armenian volunteers (out of
consideration for Moslem feeling). The war office always rejected the
idea of the use of Armenian irregulars for a landing or rising in
Cilicia. The commander in chief of the Armed Forces in Egypt, General
Maxwell, did not share this view.
On 7 september 1915 the French Admiral on the Syrian coast cabled the
High Commisioner in Cyprus that 6,000 Armenians were bravely fighting
near the Bay of Antioch. They had asked for the removal of 5,000 their
old men, women and children to Cyprus so that the able bodied men could
copntinue fighting. The High Commisioner refused, and General Maxwell
asked the Minister of War to help. Grey, the Foreign Secretary, opposed
accepting Armenian refugees to Cyprus or Egypt because they had Moslem
Communities. So in 1915. even refuge to the famillies of those fighting
at Jebel Musa was only grudgingly given.
In 1917 however it was the British authorities who tried to recruit
Armenian manpower in the Caucasus. All proposals to form Armenian
volunteer groups under British direction were rejected.
--------------------------------------- -------------------------
The Collapse of the Russian army in 1917 precipitating British Pledges
for Armenian independence.
This worried the allies that Germany would transfer troops to the
Western Front,and Baghdad, the strategic base might comne under
threat.The collapse of the Russian Caucasian front might also open the
valuable oil reserves of Baku to the Central Powers when shortage of oil
was tending to weaken their war machine in Europe. The military balance
in the Middle East might easily be tipped against Britain. The foremost
concern was the provision of military support for troops in North Persia
and Mesopotamia.
On 15th october 1917, General Barter, Head of the British Mission at the
Russian General HQ informed the Chief of the Imperial General Staff
(CIGS) that the difficulty of getting military support for General Maude
in Mesopotamia might be solved. His staff officer, after making
extensive enquiries in the Caucasus had come to the conclusion that the
only really loyal troops in the Caucasus were the Armenians. Of the
150,000 Armenians fighting in the Russiuan armies, only 35,000 were on
the Caucasus front.General Barter gained the agreement of the CIGS and
the war cabinet discussed the question on 23rd october 1917. They
authorised the Sec.of State for Foreign Affairs to concert with the US
government to bring diplomatic pressure on the Russian government to
deploy Armenian troops serving on the Eastern Front to the Caucasus, and
allow for the recruitment and formation of Armenian units for service on
the Caucasian front.Meanwhile discipline broke down in Russia and
fighting stopped..
Six Armenian battalions just formed in the Caucasus refused to be sent
to the Persian front in october until the political status of Armenia
was decided upon.. While the War cabinet and the British military
authorities wanted the Armenians to fight in northern Persia,Mesopotamia
and the Caucasus, these Armenians were naturally anxious to safeguard
the prospects of their own homeland.They did not know what objectives
they were being asked to fight for.At the Foreign Office it was the view
of Lord Robert Cecil and Sir Ronald Graham that there was little
prospect of inducing the Armenians to make any further efforts unless
the future of Armenia was guaranteed by the Western Powers.It is in this
context that the pledges on Armenian Independence given by Balfour and
Lloyd George are to be uderstood.
-------------------------------------- --------------------------
9 British war Pledges(unfulfilled)
Pledge by Asquith in the Guildhall in 1916 Asquith stated that the
British government was "resolved" that after the war there would be an
era of "liberty" for the Armenians.
In 1917 Balfour began mentioning the freedom of Armenia as a war
aim.Lloyd George had mentioned this on 29th june 1917 in Glasgow and in
the House of Commons in december 1917."Mesopotamia and Armenia would
never be restored to the tyrrany of the Turk" In bringing in the
liberation of Armenia, a land where Britain had no territorrial
interests, and tying it in to the liberation of a strategically
important , oil rich Mesopotamia, the British leaders could confuse the
issues, silence critics who accused them of fighting an imperialist war,
and could give notions of idealism and humanity to their war aims. At
the same time,in the winter of 1917-18 Britain secretly considered
making a separate peace with Turkey. Lloyd George was quite willing to
abandon the Caucasus, including Armenia, in order to acheive peace with
Turkey.
In july 1918, Balfour in the Commons , Lloyd George replying to
Manchester Armenians and Lord Cecil writing to Bryce all pledged a
future liberated Armenia.A Pledge by Balfour in a telegram to Aneurin
Williams, referred to Lord Cecil's letter published in the press on 3
october 1918 which "reaffirmed" the "government's intention to liberate
Armenia"
These pledges were according to Lloyd George "intended to have a
propoganda effect". During a supreme war Council meeting he said "nobody
was bound by a speech"
A few weeks before his death, Lord Bryce wrote about the threat of
extinction of the Armenians:"of the nation which the Allies caused to
fight for them and have now deserted"
In the nineteenth century Britain had strongly resented Russian presence
in Armenia as a threat to her position in the Persian Gulf. Once Britain
had gained control of Lower Mesopotamia, the importance of Armenia would
become superfluous
The Archbishop of Cantebury had jotted down the main points of a major
speech he was to make in the House of Lords together with the war-time
statements made by Lloyd George. One sentence reads " My fear is that
the story of these horrors and our promises may be forgotten in
resettlement"
Contribution of Armenians to the war Lord Cecil recognised that
Armenian forces took over from the Russians for five months, february
till june 1918 on the Caucasian Front, and delayed the advance of the
Turks,thus rending an important service to the British Army in
Mesopotamia. In fact few Russians were fighting on the Turkish Eastern
Front after the spring of 1917, and the Armenians fought alone,
sustained only by the "Pledges" of British Politicians for a future free
Armenia
10 The sum of £5,000,000 in Turkish gold was deposited by the Turkish
Government in Berlin in 1916, and taken over by the Allies after the
armstice, was Armenian money confiscated from deported and
massacred.Armenians. This sum was distributed among Allied nationals
having claims on Turkey. The Armenian Community are not permitted to
claim compensatoion for their losses!
----------------------------------------- -----------------------
10 The betrayal of the The Mudros Armstice(30th october 1918) . This
Armstice did not contain conditions on Armenia.
It left the six Armenian villayets under the sovereignty of Turkey.
No provision was made for the repartiation of Armenian refugees and
deportees to their homes.
There was no occupation of statregic points by the Allies and no
provision for the release of women and children.
There was no disarming of the Turkish army.
It would have been possible to gain concessions surely from the Turks,
as 3 out of 4 proposals for peace from Turkish sources included
concessions on Armenia.The armstice was hastily signed in order to
ensure that the victorious fleet sailing into Constantinople would be
commanded by a British rather than a French admiral!
In order to secure the Dardanelle straits, Palestine and Mesopotamia for
Britain, concessions were given to the Turks over Armenia.
The draft terms of the armstice were discussed in six war cabinet
meetings. The British priorities were set: there was no mention of
Armenia at all.Almost all the concesions made at Mudros were at the
expense of the Armenians.The conditions were set which eventually
enabled the Turks to gain complete control of Armenia and even gain
part of "Russian" Armenia.
---------------------------------------- ------------------------
A Labour Party Resolution on Armenia In february 1920 the Labour
Party's Advisory Committee on International Questions passed a
"Resolution on Armenia" protesting "against the treatment of Armenia by
the Allied Powers" During the war, the resolution claimed, the Ottoman
government had once and for all forfited any right to rule the Armenian
provinces of Turkey by the "deliberately organised" attempt "to
exterminate the Armenian population" The evidence was "abundant and
conclusive" and the British government had published it in a Blue Book
Yet in negotiating the armstice the Allied governments had left the
Armenian provinces under the Turkish authorities, while Turkish rule was
immediately terminated in the Arab provinces.
The resolution calaimed that: .... "the policy of the Allied Governments
since the armstice.... intends to detach from Turkey and attach to
themselves under the form of mandates conferred by the League of Nations
all those provinces of the Ottoman Empire where they have financial,
economic or strategic interests, while no provision is being made for
Armenia, the one region of Turkey which unquestionably ought to be
released from Turkish sovereignty"
(Labour Party, London, Advisory Commitee on International Questions,
Minutes and Memoranda 1918-234 (LP/IAC/1/91 and ibid. no 170)
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress