DOCSLIB.ORG

The Question of an Armenian Revolution and the Radicalization of the Committee of Union and Progress Toward the Armenian Genocide

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Question of an Armenian Revolution and the Radicalization of the Committee of Union and Progress Toward the Armenian Genocide Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal Volume 7 Issue 2 Article 8 August 2012 The Question of an Armenian Revolution and the Radicalization of the Committee of Union and Progress toward the Armenian Genocide Wolfgang Gust Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/gsp Recommended Citation Gust, Wolfgang (2012) "The Question of an Armenian Revolution and the Radicalization of the Committee of Union and Progress toward the Armenian Genocide," Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal: Vol. 7: Iss. 2: Article 8. DOI: 10.3138/gsp.7.2/3.251 Available at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/gsp/vol7/iss2/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Access Journals at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Question of an Armenian Revolution and the Radicalization of the Committee of Union and Progress toward the Armenian Genocide Wolfgang Gust Hamburg, Germany Hilmar Kaiser, one of the first German historians to work on the Armenian Genocide and one who has often written about it as a historical fact, is now trying to dilute that history. In his latest article, which consciously avoids use of the term genocide, Kaiser seeks to portray Mehmed Djemal Pasha, a member of the Young Turk triumvirate ruling the Ottoman Empire during World War I, as an individual resisting the genocidal policies of his co-conspirators within the Committee of Union and Progress. Kaiser claims to employ Ottoman documents to demonstrate that the initial intention of the Turkish government was to relocate the Ottoman Armenians for military reasons, although he admits that they posed no imminent danger to the state. Kaiser indicates that the first “relocations” of Armenians took place in areas controlled by Djemal and were initiated by him, then goes on to claim that even though the infamous death camp of Deir-es-Zor was located within his sphere of power, he, in reality, protected the Armenians. However, facts showing the extent of the genocide have been overlooked. This article will use archival documents from the Foreign Office of the Ger- man Empire, the Ottoman Empire’s wartime ally, to demonstrate the shortcomings of Kaiser’s evi- dence and arguments. Key words: Armenian Genocide, Djemal, Young Turks, Kaiser, German archives, Ottoman ar- chives, German compliance, Zeitun, deportations Hilmar Kaiser’s latest publication, “Regional Resistance to Central Government Policies: Ahmed Djemal Pasha, the Governors of Aleppo, and Armenian Deportees in the Spring and Summer of 1915,”1 states that there never was a national Armenian revolution that seriously threatened the Ottoman Empire. This, however, is the key theory behind the main argument that previously denied the Armenian Genocide, a theory that was adopted at that time by the German allies of the Young Turk killers, against the better knowledge of their own observers on site who vehemently contradicted this, but were unable to assert themselves against their superiors. Kaiser restricts his statements mainly to the sphere of control of the Fourth Army, which was commanded by Mehmed Djemal Pasha. This sphere ranged from Zeitun, the Armenian stronghold in the north, to the city of Urfa in the east, and included Syria and Palestine, as well as Arabia as far as Mecca and Medina. Regarding the Armenians in this region, the German vice-consul of Alexandretta (Iskenderun), Hermann Hoffmann-Fölkersamb, who was often temporarily in charge of such important consulates in Djemal’s area as Aleppo, Damascus, and Haifa, was cer- tain: “I do not believe that they would commit treason.”2 Furthermore, with regard to the alleged military danger posed by the Armenians, Hoffmann wrote, Wolfgang Gust, “The Question of an Armenian Revolution and the Radicalization of the Committee of Union and Progress toward the Armenian Genocide,” Genocide Studies and Prevention 7, 2/3 (August/ December 2012): 251–264. © 2012 Genocide Studies and Prevention. doi: 10.3138/gsp.7.2/3.251 252 Gust Apart from the case of Van and its adjacent zone, particular caution is called for relative to the charge of a “militarily organized plot.” Certain local insurrectionary movements cannot be treated as proof of such. For example, the fact that the revolt in Zeitun cannot be singled out as a case of a conspiracy of that kind, is clearly evi- denced in the reports of the Imperial Consulate in Aleppo. The uprising of the Ar- menians in the region of Suediye [Musa Dagh] (to the south of Alexandretta) was, according to the descriptions even on the part of the Turkish military, not a con- spiracy. The recovery of the revolutionaries from Suediye by French warships was also not a long-planned act. This is apparent from the circumstances and the opi- nions of well-informed Turks.3 Kaiser agrees with him, albeit more theoretically, because he justifies the brutal ac- tions of the Turks against the supposed revolutionaries. And after his verbal knockout against those who deny the genocide, he lets them land gently by claiming that Djemal did not carry out any genocidal actions against the Armenians and, therefore, the word genocide should not be included in his article. Kaiser wants to prove that Djemal attempted to rescue the Armenians from annihi- lation. This is surprising because not only was the infamous death camp of Deir-es-Zor located within Djemal’s sphere of power, but also the desert strip along the Euphrates and especially along the Chabur River, where the surviving Armenians were literally butchered. Kaiser divides those who have done research on this genocide into two schools of thought: on the one hand, there are those, including Vahakn N. Dadrian and Taner Akçam, who started with the assumption that there was a central plan for eliminating the Armenians; on the other hand, there are others, such as Raymond Kévorkian, who assumed that there was a policy of resettlement that was meant to create a general majority for the Turks or at least the Muslims. Both schools of thought, however, as- sumed that there was intent to annihilate the Armenians and other Christian minorities, whose fate was, therefore, already settled before the beginning of the war. Kaiser’s theory that originally there was no central plan at all opposes this. He writes, This article suggests that the notion of a unified body of genocidal conspirators exert- ing unrestrained control over the entire Ottoman Empire cannot be sustained. This regional study will challenge such notions. It claims that Ottoman deportation policies concerning Armenians evolved in 1915 in a concrete historic context and not from a conspiratorial plan waiting to be revealed.4 It was only at the end of May 1915, according to Kaiser’s conclusion, that the “actual” situation led to the systematic deportation of Armenians from their areas of settlement and a central management was put into place. With regard to Mehmed Talât, the main person accused, and the Interior Ministry, he writes, Far from simply imposing its decisions, the ministry quickly met with resistance from Djemal who doubted the wisdom of the central government’s policies. The opposition against Talaat’s and the ruling [Committee of Union and Pro- gress]’s policy was stronger than has been assumed so far, reaching into the leader- ship of the party. At its core stood Ahmed Djemal Pasha.5 © 2012 Genocide Studies and Prevention 7, no. 2/3 doi: 10.3138/gsp.7.2/3.251 Question of an Armenian Revolution 253 Kaiser notes that by introducing extensive documentation produced by Ottoman provincial and military authorities, the article contextualizes Ottoman central government direc- tives. ...[The]Ottoman officials at the highest level of government had detailed knowledge of the consequences of their decisions. The data also confirms in detail shocking Western consular reports. Thus, the various sources corroborate each other and form a consistent record.6 Many of these Western reports (mainly American and German) have meanwhile been published. What new findings does Kaiser now convey based on these internal files? He first describes events that are certainly known. For example, Teşkilât-ı Mahsusa units were to perform acts of sabotage and stir up rebellions among the local Muslim population. In this connection, the CUP hoped to win the cooperation of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF), which had branches in both countries. During CUP–ARF negotiations Teşkilât-ı Mahsusa members re- vealed their secret agenda, but failed to obtain the ARF’s cooperation.7 Kaiser then goes on to write of the Gulf of Alexandretta (Iskenderun), where the Turks feared naval attacks by the Entente fleet and arrested several Armenians whom, accord- ing to Kaiser, they suspected of being in contact with British ships. Vice-Consul Hoffmann reported the following regarding this episode from the Consulate in Alexandretta: twice, when the English cruiser Doris landed, Armenian sol- diers were taken prisoner. “Once, an Armenian sergeant of a group of seven men (equipped with malfunctioning Martinis) in a trench (with no emergency exit) suppos- edly surrendered by waving a handkerchief.”8 In his article, Hilmar Kaiser now presents the reasons, based on Ottoman files: In the south, along the Gulf of Alexandretta, Ottoman commanders worried about an allied landing that could cut off the supply lines of the Ottoman armies in Pales- tine, Mesopotamia, and parts of the eastern front. In Adana province, authorities had apprehended some Armenians who had been in touch with British warships bombarding the coast. The espionage was deemed serious as few troops and hardly any artillery were available to defend the coast. Moreover, Adana provincial autho- rities had filed worrying reports about the activities of Armenian political parties.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • No. 151-October-2020
    California State University, Fresno Armenian Studies Program Non-Profit and Armenian Students Organization U.S. Postage 5245 N. Backer Ave. M/S PB 4 PAID Fresno, CA 93740-8001 Permit No. 262 Change Service Requested FRESNO, CA HYE SHARZHOOM Armenian Action nd ՀԱՅ ՇԱՐԺՈՒՄ 42 Year October 2020 Vol. 42, No. 1 (151) Ethnic Supplement to The Collegian Dr. Joseph I. Castro Chosen as Artsakh Attacked by Azerbaijan on Sept. 27 Eighth Chancellor of the CSU Azerbaijan Targets Civilians and Churches native and first Mexican American to be appointed to oversee the 23-campus system. Castro will succeed Timothy P. White who is retiring after leading the university since late 2012. “The California State University provides unprecedented and transformational opportunities for students from all backgrounds to earn a high-quality college degree and to better their families, their Dr. Joseph I. Castro communities and the industries in Photo: ASP Archive which they become leaders. There CSU PUBLIC AFFAIRS is no other institution that makes DEPARTMENT AND NEWS SOURCES this great of an impact on the entire state – the CSU is key to a The California State University growing and thriving California,” (CSU) Board of Trustees has said Castro. “I am truly grateful appointed Joseph I. Castro, Ph.D., for and excited about this unique to serve as the eight Chancellor and wonderful opportunity, and of the California State University I look forward to working with system. Castro has served as the the talented faculty, staff and The 19th century Holy Savior (Ghazanchetsots) Cathedral in Shushi was damaged in an eighth president of California presidents of the 23 campuses Azeri attack on October 8.
    [Show full text]
  • Constructions and Instrumentalization of the Past: a Comparative Study on Memory Management in the Region
    CBEES State of the Region Report 2020 Constructions and Instrumentalization of the Past A Comparative Study on Memory Management in the Region Published with support from the Foundation for Baltic and East European Studies (Östersjstiftelsen) Constructions and Instrumentalization of the Past A Comparative Study on Memory Management in the Region December 2020 Publisher Centre for Baltic and East European Studies, CBEES, Sdertrn University © CBEES, Sdertrn University and the authors Editor Ninna Mrner Editorial Board Joakim Ekman, Florence Frhlig, David Gaunt, Tora Lane, Per Anders Rudling, Irina Sandomirskaja Layout Lena Fredriksson, Serpentin Media Proofreading Bridget Schaefer, Semantix Print Elanders Sverige AB ISBN 978-91-85139-12-5 4 Contents 7 Preface. A New Annual CBEES Publication, Ulla Manns and Joakim Ekman 9 Introduction. Constructions and Instrumentalization of the Past, David Gaunt and Tora Lane 15 Background. Eastern and Central Europe as a Region of Memory. Some Common Traits, Barbara Trnquist-Plewa ESSAYS 23 Victimhood and Building Identities on Past Suffering, Florence Frhlig 29 Image, Afterimage, Counter-Image: Communist Visuality without Communism, Irina Sandomirskaja 37 The Toxic Memory Politics in the Post-Soviet Caucasus, Thomas de Waal 45 The Flag Revolution. Understanding the Political Symbols of Belarus, Andrej Kotljarchuk 55 Institutes of Trauma Re-production in a Borderland: Poland, Ukraine, and Lithuania, Per Anders Rudling COUNTRY BY COUNTRY 69 Germany. The Multi-Level Governance of Memory as a Policy Field, Jenny Wstenberg 80 Lithuania. Fractured and Contested Memory Regimes, Violeta Davoliūtė 87 Belarus. The Politics of Memory in Belarus: Narratives and Institutions, Aliaksei Lastouski 94 Ukraine. Memory Nodes Loaded with Potential to Mobilize People, Yuliya Yurchuk 106 Czech Republic.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cost of Memorializing: Analyzing Armenian Genocide Memorials and Commemorations in the Republic of Armenia and in the Diaspora
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR HISTORY, CULTURE AND MODERNITY www.history-culture-modernity.org Published by: Uopen Journals Copyright: © The Author(s). Content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence eISSN: 2213-0624 The Cost of Memorializing: Analyzing Armenian Genocide Memorials and Commemorations in the Republic of Armenia and in the Diaspora Sabrina Papazian HCM 7: 55–86 DOI: 10.18352/hcm.534 Abstract In April of 1965 thousands of Armenians gathered in Yerevan and Los Angeles, demanding global recognition of and remembrance for the Armenian Genocide after fifty years of silence. Since then, over 200 memorials have been built around the world commemorating the vic- tims of the Genocide and have been the centre of hundreds of marches, vigils and commemorative events. This article analyzes the visual forms and semiotic natures of three Armenian Genocide memorials in Armenia, France and the United States and the commemoration prac- tices that surround them to compare and contrast how the Genocide is being memorialized in different Armenian communities. In doing so, this article questions the long-term effects commemorations have on an overall transnational Armenian community. Ultimately, it appears that calls for Armenian Genocide recognition unwittingly categorize the global Armenian community as eternal victims, impeding the develop- ment of both the Republic of Armenia and the Armenian diaspora. Keywords: Armenian Genocide, commemoration, cultural heritage, diaspora, identity, memorials HCM 2019, VOL. 7 Downloaded from Brill.com10/05/202155 12:33:22PM via free access PAPAZIAN Introduction On 24 April 2015, the hundredth anniversary of the commencement of the Armenian Genocide, Armenians around the world collectively mourned for and remembered their ancestors who had lost their lives in the massacres and deportations of 1915.1 These commemorations took place in many forms, including marches, candlelight vigils, ceremo- nial speeches and cultural performances.
    [Show full text]
  • The HOMENETMEN LEADER's GUIDE
    The HOMENETMEN LEADER’S GUIDE Հ.Մ.Ը.Մ.ական ՂԵԿԱՎԱՐԻ ՈՒՂԵՑՈՅՑ English Version Second Edition 2.1 February 2019 Prepared by: Dr. Shahe Yeni-Komshian Commissioned by: Homenetmen Western USA Regional Executive Board Sponsored by: Homenetmen Central Executive Board The content of the Homenetmen Leader’s Guide includes original writings by SY, as well as edited past documents and/or reproduction of already prepared documents. The Guide is available on-line as an e-document, at: www. Homenetmen.net The Homenetmen Leader’s Guide was Developed on the Occasion of the 100th Anniversary of HOMENETMEN As a Tribute to its Remarkable Contribution to Armenian Society, In the Hopes of Educating Future Generations of Leaders to Carry on the Torch. SY 2 PREFACE Homenetmen has bylaws, rules and regulations, but no formal leadership development program. Governing bodies also do not have a comprehensive orientation guide for new board members. Hence this guidebook. This Guide is primarily written for the leadership of Western USA Region. However, the entire Homenetmen family with all of its Regions and Chapters could use this guidebook, with minor adjustments of region specific information. WHY Do We Need to HAVE a GUIDE for LEADERS? Every nonprofit organization needs a board development process. Homenetmen has to give tools to those leaders who are expected to lead our youth, to better explain to them their role and responsibilities, educate them about their position and functions and help improve their performance. Quality leaders are better mentors. This Guide may be utilized for two purposes: 1. As a reference handbook, adopted by any Homenetmen leader, or 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Amaanews-Aug-Sept-Oct2002
    Publication of the Armenian Missionary Association of America AUG/SEPT/OCT 2002 - Vol. XXXVI No. 4 (ISSN 1097-0924) The Rev. Jirair Sogomian Editor Retiring Haigazian University President, the Rev. Dr. John Khanjian Welcomes the New President, the Rev. Dr. Paul Haidostian (see story on pages 10-11) E D I T O R I A L M E S S A G E “A Test of Our Stewardship” Rev. Jirair M. Sogomian These, indeed, are unusual times for us all! As we approach the first anniversary of that infamous 11th day of September in the history of the United States of America, we share the lingering grief and pain of the families and friends of those thousands of innocent victims who perished in such tragic circumstances. However, deeply aware of our shrinking world, often described as a global village, we also share the grief and pain of the least of God’s children around the world who are daily victimized by irrational and inhuman violence, and by the deeply encrusted human injustice and greed that hold our world hostage to unrighteousness and senseless suffering. eedless to say, our world has been affected in not be hoarded and stored up for the future. These are Nmore than one way by the escalation of unbridled times that test the mettle of our faith, the genuineness hatred, boundless brutality and insatiable human of our Christian stewardship, and the honesty of our greed. The economic downturn in our country, caused motives in giving and sharing that others may sur- by these and other conditions, has seriously affected vive times harsher than we have ever experienced! not only the pocketbooks of millions of people, but These are times that call us to new standards of giv- has also seriously curtailed our ability to reach out to ing that are truly sacrificial and self-denying.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ottoman Empire and Germany's Bidfor World Power, 1898–1918
    Naval War College Review Volume 64 Article 18 Number 3 Summer 2011 The Berlin–Baghdad Express: The Ottoman Empire and Germany’s Bidfor World Power, 1898–1918 Thomas E. Seal Follow this and additional works at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review Recommended Citation Seal, Thomas E. (2011) "The Berlin–Baghdad Express: The Ottoman Empire and Germany’s Bidfor World Power, 1898–1918," Naval War College Review: Vol. 64 : No. 3 , Article 18. Available at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol64/iss3/18 This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Naval War College Review by an authorized editor of U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Color profile: Disabled Composite Default screen 150 NAVALSeal: The WAR Berlin–Baghdad COLLEGE REVIEW Express: The Ottoman Empire and Germany’s Bidf self-proclaimed Southern strategist, is Russian rivals) by linking the farthest simply and reasonably dismissed as a reaches of the Ottoman Empire with fantasist. the seat of power in Istanbul. The com- Given the number of bad books that pletion of the railway, first to Baghdad have been written about the Civil War, andthenextendedontoBasra,would it is a pleasure to find a good one. have profound political, economic, and Stoker is a solid, competent author who strategic importance. makes his points in clear convincing To achieve this end Germany designed prose. Written from a refreshing view- a strategy to undermine the cohesion of point, The Grand Design is a book the British Empire through Islamic holy worth reading.
    [Show full text]
  • Phoenician Ships: Types, Trends, Trade and Treacherous Trade Routes
    PHOENICIAN SHIPS: TYPES, TRENDS, TRADE AND TREACHEROUS TRADE ROUTES by ANNE MARIE SMITH Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS In the subject BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY at the UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA SUPERVISOR: PROF. CL vW SCHEEPERS November 2012 Student number: 31063543 I declare that PHOENICIAN SHIPS: TYPES, TRENDS, TRADE AND TREACHEROUS TRADE ROUTES is my own work and that all the sources that I have used or quoted have been indicated and acknowledged by means of complete references. _________________________ ___________________________ SIGNATURE DATE (Mrs) ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ............................................................ ix ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................. xi SUMMARY .................................................................................... xii CHAPTER 1 .................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1 1.1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 1 1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT ............................................................................... 1 1.3 HYPOTHESIS................................................................................................ 2 1.4 AIM AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ...................................................... 2 1.5 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Legacies of the Anglo-Hashemite Relationship in Jordan
    Legacies of the Anglo-Hashemite Relationship in Jordan: How this symbiotic alliance established the legitimacy and political longevity of the regime in the process of state-formation, 1914-1946 An Honors Thesis for the Department of Middle Eastern Studies Julie Murray Tufts University, 2018 Acknowledgements The writing of this thesis was not a unilateral effort, and I would be remiss not to acknowledge those who have helped me along the way. First of all, I would like to thank my advisor, Professor Thomas Abowd, for his encouragement of my academic curiosity this past year, and for all his help in first, making this project a reality, and second, shaping it into (what I hope is) a coherent and meaningful project. His class provided me with a new lens through which to examine political history, and gave me with the impetus to start this paper. I must also acknowledge the role my abroad experience played in shaping this thesis. It was a research project conducted with CET that sparked my interest in political stability in Jordan, so thank you to Ines and Dr. Saif, and of course, my classmates, Lensa, Matthew, and Jackie, for first empowering me to explore this topic. I would also like to thank my parents and my brother, Jonathan, for their continuous support. I feel so lucky to have such a caring family that has given me the opportunity to pursue my passions. Finally, a shout-out to the gals that have been my emotional bedrock and inspiration through this process: Annie, Maya, Miranda, Rachel – I love y’all; thanks for listening to me rant about this all year.
    [Show full text]
  • Constantinople Agreement”, 1915: Between Britain, France and Russia - Initiated by Russia to Assure Rights to Constantinople, Straits of Dardanelles
    Studying the Ottomans: Section 2: Ottomans in the Modern World (19th -early 20th C.) WWI and Aftermath. End of Empire, Birth of Modern Turkey (2:) politics of dismemberment -- ‘Secret Agreements’ Nov. 19-23 World War I Pledges to Arabs: - Britain encouraged Sherif of Mecca to organize Arab revolt, undermine Ottoman attempts unity 1915-16 “Hussayn-McMahon” correspondence: - outlined agreement: -Hussayn would rally Arabs in exchange for Arab independence, British alliance (political, economic) [see ‘Additional Readings’] World War I Correspondence ‘Secret’: took place between 14 July – 10 March, 1915 Hussayn made it clear: this was about recogniztion of ‘Arab Caliphate of Islam’ – nation defined by ‘Arabness’ Initially: - claimed Basra, Baghdad as ‘ancient Arab homeland’ - subsequently agreed to ‘temporary’ British authority, as long as Arab interests respected World War I - also wanted Adana and northern region including Alexandretta; wilayets Damascus, Aleppo (approximately) - AND, most significantly: wilayet of Beirut - relinquished claims to former in face of Britain’s response that these areas were ‘not purely Arab’ in population World War I - effectively, British attempted NOT to engage in detailed discussion of boundaries: at first ‘deferred’, then left ambiguities - ultimately: Hussayn agreed to terms - But Which Boundaries? Never Clear…. Map A: interpretation EXCLUDING Beirut Ambiguity of McMahon-Hussayn Correspondence as reflected in conflicting Interpretations, conflicting ‘agreements’ …. Map B: interpretation INCLUDING Beirut I Ambiguity of McMahon-Hussayn Correspondence as reflected in conflicting Interpretations, conflicting ‘agreements’ …. World War I Text on Map A: ---Line west of which Britain said ‘should be exluded from the proposed limits and boundaries of any future independent Arab State (McMahon 25 oct.
    [Show full text]
  • Cilician Armenia in the Thirteenth Century.[3] Marco Polo, for Example, Set out on His Journey to China from Ayas in 1271
    The Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia (also known as Little Armenia; not to be confused with the Arme- nian Kingdom of Antiquity) was a state formed in the Middle Ages by Armenian refugees fleeing the Seljuk invasion of Armenia. It was located on the Gulf of Alexandretta of the Mediterranean Sea in what is today southern Turkey. The kingdom remained independent from around 1078 to 1375. The Kingdom of Cilicia was founded by the Rubenian dynasty, an offshoot of the larger Bagratid family that at various times held the thrones of Armenia and Georgia. Their capital was Sis. Cilicia was a strong ally of the European Crusaders, and saw itself as a bastion of Christendom in the East. It also served as a focus for Armenian nationalism and culture, since Armenia was under foreign oc- cupation at the time. King Levon I of Armenia helped cultivate Cilicia's economy and commerce as its interaction with European traders grew. Major cities and castles of the kingdom included the port of Korikos, Lam- pron, Partzerpert, Vahka (modern Feke), Hromkla, Tarsus, Anazarbe, Til Hamdoun, Mamistra (modern Misis: the classical Mopsuestia), Adana and the port of Ayas (Aias) which served as a Western terminal to the East. The Pisans, Genoese and Venetians established colonies in Ayas through treaties with Cilician Armenia in the thirteenth century.[3] Marco Polo, for example, set out on his journey to China from Ayas in 1271. For a short time in the 1st century BCE the powerful kingdom of Armenia was able to conquer a vast region in the Levant, including the area of Cilicia.
    [Show full text]
  • Turkey Bird Report 2002–06
    Sandgrouse-080723:Sandgrouse 7/23/2008 12:51 PM Page 166 Turkey Bird Report 2002–06 GUY M KIRWAN, METEHAN ÖZEN & BARBAROS DEMIRCI (COMPILERS) This report, covering the years 2002–06, has been produced jointly by GMK, MÖ and BD, and is the second such to be co- edited by an Anglo- Turkish team, following the last report (Sandgrouse 25: 8–31). The increase in the number of in- country birdwatchers submitting records to the report, first noted in the last compilation, encouragingly has been main- tained, as has the number of records of rarities being documented photographically. In contrast, reports from visiting foreign birdwatchers, although frequently posted on the internet, are now rarely submitted. These latter are still welcome, as some areas of the country (and seasons) are still arguably better covered by visiting, rather than resident, observers. Highlights of the present report include the first records in Turkey of the following 12 species: Lesser Flamingo Phoenicopterus minor, Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos, Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes (one unconfirmed previous record), Namaqua Dove Oena capen- sis, Siberian Accentor Prunella montanella, Blackstart Cercomela melanura, Black- throated Thrush Turdus ruficollis atrogularis, Plain Leaf Warbler Phylloscopus neglectus (apparently breeding in extreme eastern Turkey), Arctic Warbler P. borealis (one unconfirmed previous record), Iraq Babbler Turdoides altirostris (one unconfirmed previous record), Fan- tailed Raven Corvus rhipidurus and Lapland Longspur Calcarius lapponicus (one unconfirmed pre- vious record). The first reports of the following species— Little Shearwater Puffinus assimilis, Cotton Pygmy Goose Nettapus coromandelianus and Oriental Pratincole Glareola maldivarum— were also received, but insufficient documentation is available to advocate their acceptance onto Turkey’s bird list.
    [Show full text]
  • Enver Pasha Slain ··;Bysovietforce
    • ENVER PASHA SLAIN ··;BYSOVIETFORCE Turks' War, Leader' Is- Left Dead " on ttae FiildAfter Desperat~ . .. Fight 'hi 'Bokhara. • '-----" LAST OF THE TRIUMVIRATE. His Colleagues Talaat and OJemal Assassinated ~y Armenians After Fleeing From Constantinople. By WALTER DURANTY. Copyrfaht. 1922. h7 The New York Tlmu Comp&D1, By Wireless to TUIII NEW YOBK TIMES. MOSCOW, Aug'. 16.-Enver Pasha met i his death In a desperate battle against. odds In Southeastern Bokhara. territory : between Knovallngam and , Barljuan on'; A'ug... The Turk'lsh ' leader had been , pressed severely by Soviet troops dur­ Ing the past months until he waS vlr- ; tually surr:>unded with a small body ot' cavalry'ot seven or eight sabres. .At the beginning ot August Enver saw the red corps closing In from every side, and determined to attempt to break through. Repo~ts state he divided his torce Into two sections, one ot which ap­ pears, for a time, to have overcome the RussIans opposed to H. Enver seized the advantage for a charge towards treedom, but the RUl!slans rallied, Emd in a hand-to-hand combat Enver tell, pierced by five wounds.• The body was IdentifIed after'the tight by documents, seallf, .!tc., beyond the possIbility ot doubt. \ The maJorit)" ot 'his partisans sur­ rendered and the Insurrectionary move­ ment Is now conslrtered at an end. ' With the death ot Enver Pasha the entire Turkish triumvirate, notorious aUke for having steered Turkey into the 'World War on the side ot Germany and to have actively schemed to, solve the problem ot minorities by annihilation. has now' been "wiped out by, violent deaths.
    [Show full text]