Read in Armenian

To The Prime Minister, The Foreign Secretary, The Minister for Europe (Ms Caroline Flint), Mr David Cameron MP, Mr William Hague MP, Mr Nick Clegg MP, Mr Ed Davey MP, Mr Alex Salmond MP, Mr Adam Price MP

Armenia Solidarity
Nor Serount Cultural Association

Dear Sir,
This week we mark the ninetieth anniversary of the Great Betrayal of Armenians and Assyrians in the Mudros armistice with Turkey (30th October 1918). We ask you to consider what measures of restitution are suitable. The lack of a homeland for Assyrians and the continued Turkish control of Western Armenia is a direct result of the armistice. The Assyrians in particular have been subjected to subsequent massacres emanating from Britain’s hand in the creation of Iraq, a centralised state without provision for the protection of minorities. It is indicative of our selective amnesia about our past responsibilities that only two MPs have signed the EDM on the 75th anniversary of the Simel massacre of Assyrians in 1933 soon after the end of the British Mandate.
The latest pogrom of Christian Assyrian and Armenian Christians in Mosul two weeks ago must surely worry our consciences. We appeal to you not to persist in ensuring that Britain continually assumes the role of a Pontius Pilate with respect to this problem
The continuing cultural Genocide in Turkey, with the descendants of forcibly Islamized Armenians still living in fear of disclosing their identities, and Armenian and Assyrian heritage deliberately destroyed, must be addressed before Turkey makes any progress towards EU membership.
We request a private meeting with you to discuss these matters
Regards,
Eilian Williams
Khatchig Vartanian
Bagrad Nazarian

Mudros has a central place in Britain’s dishonourable behaviour from 1915 to 1923
(A brief account based on: Britain and the Armenian Question, 1915-1923, Akaby Nassibian, Palgrave Macmillan, 1984).
1. Britain used the genocide of Armenians and Assyrians for war propaganda
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. 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 propaganda in 1916-17 and had an influence upon the ultimate decision 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
2. Promise of the Allies: The declaration of 24th may 1915 “The governments of Britain France and Russia will hold the members of the Ottoman government personally responsible for these new crimes against humanity and civilisation,”
3. 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 presently 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 added “I should be disinclined to make any donation for the benefit of Armenians in Turkey without publicly stating that we are doing it” The reply to the Ambassador was that it did not affect “British National 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.
4. British war Pledges
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 tyranny of the Turk” In bringing in the liberation of Armenia, a land where Britain had no territorial 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 achieve 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 propaganda 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
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 rendering 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
5. The betrayal of the Mudros Armistice (30th October 1918) did not contain conditions on Armenia. It left the 6 Armenian villayets under the sovereignty of Turkey and no provision was made for the repatriation of Armenian refugees and deportees to their homes. There was no occupation of strategic 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 armistice 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 armistice were discussed in six war cabinet meetings. The British priorities were set: there was no mention of Armenia at all. Almost all the concessions 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.
Balfour wrote the Supreme Council’s reply to the Turkish delegation in July 1919. He characterised the “calculated atrocity” of the wartime Turkish massacres as equalling or exceeding “anything in recorded history”. Lord Curzon, his successor as foreign secretary agreed that Turkish rule over the subject races should no longer be allowed.
6. The Paris Peace Conference Britain behaved shamefully towards the Assyrians, preventing two of their delegations from attending the conference.
7. After Independence, Britain did not recognise Armenia because of her support for the White Russian armies who planned to integrate the Caucasus into Russia. Non recognition meant that Armenia could not raise the loans they desperately needed. The British General commanding Baku (Thomson) disregarded the independence of the Caucasus As the British were taking large quantities of oil from Baku the British favoured Azeri territorial aspirations in Karabagh and sent large quantities of arms to Baku not to Erevan. General Thomson appointed a Pro-Turk and Armenophobe as governor of the disputed Karabagh region.
8. The military abandonment of Armenia. Withdrawal from the Caucasus after only three months for financial reasons. The declared policy of evacuation encouraged the Turks. General Milne, who commanded the Army of the Black sea, was of the opinion that evacuation would lead to massacres of Armenians. The military representative of the British delegation to the Paris Peace Conference asked the War Office (under public pressure) it would be possible for British troops to leave behind a portion of their ammunition for the Armenians. The Army Council opposed this request. The British withdrawal presented an opportunity for the Kurds, Tatars and Turks to sabotage any agreement which might favour Armenia.
9. The Army Council abdicates all responsibility for Armenia Blame for this outcome must rest with Sir Henry Wilson. Under his responsibility, the General Staff did not deal effectively with the disarmament of Turkey. In addition, the Army Council, under his guidance, persistently refused to provide the necessary arms and ammunition to the Republic of Armenia. The military authorities in Batum even held up for some time two aeroplanes purchased privately by the Republic. Yet later Sir Henry Wilson victoriously argued that the republic was not capable of taking possession of the ancient homelands of Armenia as earmarked by the Foreign Office experts of the British delegation in Paris
“How do you expect Armenia to hold her own against a fully armed Turkey and a rearmed Azerbaijan, herself being unarmed” he asked, when he himself was more than anyone responsible for these conditions. Turkey was allowed to be “fully armed” even before Peace was made, when she should have been disarmed. Having made up his mind that Turkey should be a major power in the Near East after the collapse of the white Russians, he continued to press his views resolutely. When President Woodrow Wilson asked him how many troops America would require for the mandate over Armenia, Sir Henry replied “up to five divisions” and this “terrified” the president. It seems he persistently tried to frustrate any encouragement given to Armenian independence.
10. The government attempts to abdicate responsibility
In the Paris Peace Conference it was felt that Britain had secured the richest and the strategically important parts of the Ottoman Empire for herself. Likewise the Americans felt that the withdrawal from the Caucasus was an attempt to “force” the hands of the US government and to see that only the poorest parts were eventually assigned to the mandatory. During the war British leaders made many statements promising liberation and protection, and were seen now to pass the responsibility onto the US. They reminded the British of Lloyd George’s speech in the guildhall in 1916 “Britain is resolved to liberate the Armenians from the Turkish yoke and to restore them to the religious and political freedom they deserve and of which they have been so long deprived”
In the end The Treaty of Sevres (10th august 1920) a Treaty which Britain had no intention to enforce, allowed Britain to wash her hands of Armenia.
Lloyd George devised a scheme that the Allies should find equipment for the Armenians who should be given a chance to fight their own battles. If they were not in a position to defend their own frontiers, then he thought that “there was no use for a nation like that in the world”
11. The allies (particularly Britain) did nothing to show the Turks that they meant to implement the provisions of the Treaty of Sevres regarding Armenia. The Armenian representative Avetis Aharonian came to London on the 12th November 1920. Sir John Tilley of the Foreign Office told him armed intervention was “entirely out of the question”. His suggestion for an Armenian volunteer force concentrating at a base on some Greek island was dismissed as “wholly impracticable”. He then suggested an army of peace with volunteers from all parts of the world. Tilley rejected that idea too. Aharonian asked how the powers contemplated executing the Turkish Treaty. Tilley told him that the powers could execute immediately that which related to Constantinople and the straits. Then they would organise Turkish forces with which they hoped it would be possible gradually “to pacify Anatolia”. So the Treaty of Sevres, regarding the Armenian clauses and the Eastern provinces would only be carried out through pacifying Anatolia by “Turkish forces”! Referring to Aharonian’s numerous letters asking for effective help, Lord Curzon had expressed the view that “no reply need be returned”
12. The Complete abandonment of Armenia In desperation Armenians tried to mobilise the League of Nations. Tilley at the Foreign office instructed the British delegate to discourage any attempt to raise the Armenian Question there. ” I do not feel that it is a matter we want to hear very much about: and whatever may have been expected of us originally we intend to do as little as we can for Armenia either in men or money” Curzon initialled the minute and did not argue against it.
In a similar mood a Conference of British ministers agreed, on the advice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that Britain should not offer to participate in any financial guarantee to be given to Armenia by the members of the League of Nations. The Conference agreed to oppose admission of Armenia into the League of Nations.
M. Hymans, President of the Council of the League of Nations cabled the British government asking whether they would be disposed to undertake, on behalf of the League, the humanitarian mission of stopping the hostilities between Armenia and the Kemalists. The response was negative. On 19th November the Army Council wrote to the Foreign Office that it would serve no useful purpose to forward munitions to Armenia. Thus the abandonment of Armenia was complete and total in respect of help.
13. On the 12th November 1920 Gevorg the 5th, Catholicos of all the Armenians made this appeal from Yerevan :”Weakened, famished, suffering, the Armenian people sees itself abandoned at the present hour to the enemy which desires their total destruction…. In the name of the Saviour I appeal to Christian Humanity to save the rest of my people in Armenia. The British government pays no heed to this.
14. Even before the collapse of Armenia, Bonar Law wanted to revise the Treaty of Sevres in favour of the Turks. It would please the Mohamedan world. Also war exports to Turkey exceeded £8.5 million. Annexing territory to Armenia was now viewed in the Foreign office as undesirable: “Giving them the Wilson frontier would merely bring Russian influence nearer Constantinople-which neither we nor the Turks want.”
15. In 1922 Noel Buxton MP for Suffolk North proposed that the government confer with the Powers at Lausanne with a view to cession of territory to Turkey in Northern Mesopotamia in return for territory to the Armenian republic. The government chose to hold on to the oil-rights of Mosul rather than carrying out pledges to the Armenians.
16. Britain France and Russia sign away historic Armenia for good in the Treaty of Lausanne (1923). In this Treaty which fixed the present day border of Turkey, there was no mention of Armenia! The idea of a national home for Turkish-Armenian refugees was dropped to the ground.
17. Activist Emily Robinson maintained that armistice terms had provided for the return of all prisoners of war. Yet only male prisoners were released and “about 100,000 Armenian women and children remained captives still”. As a result of her efforts, the League of Nations had appointed in 1920 three commissioners to enquire into the conditions of these detainees. In 1923 however in reply to her enquiries, the Foreign Office had written that the Turks at Lausanne “refused to allow the work of the commission to continue”. She was outraged. This meant, she wrote to Canon J. A. Douglas that the Turks have flouted the decision of the League and that they had been upheld by the victorious powers Grieved that the Allies would go to any length to secure concessions to themselves instead of carrying out pledges to liberate Turkish Armenia, she wrote: “By betraying Armenia the Allies have destroyed not only faith in themselves but in other things as well”.
18. On 26th November 1924, the leaders of the two main opposition parties in Britain, H. H. Asquith and Stanley Baldwin presented a memorandum to Ramsey MacDonald, the Prime Minister. They said that Britain should respond to the letter from the Secretary-General of the League of Nations, dated 24th march 1924, and supporting the assistance of the Armenian people for the following reasons.
1- because the Armenians were encouraged by promises of freedom to support the allied cause during the war, and suffered tragically for this cause.
2-; because during the war and since the armistice, repeated pledges were given by statesmen to secure the liberation and independence of the Armenian nation.
3- because Great Britain is responsible for the final dispersion of the Ottoman Armenians after the sack of Smyrna in 1922
4- because 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 armistice, 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 compensation for their losses!
The leaders of the Conservative and Liberal Parties recognised this. They said the “government should forthwith make an important grant”
Shortly afterwards, the minority Labour government fell from power. Baldwin became Prime Minister commanding 419 seats out of 615 in the Commons. No grants were made for resettlement of Armenian refugees in Armenia or in Syria
19. 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 forfeited 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 Boook Yet in negotiating the armistice the Allied governments had left the Armenian provinces under the Turkish authorities, while Turkish rule was immediately terminated in the Arab provinces.
The resolution claimed that: …. “the policy of the Allied Governments since the armistice…. 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 Committee on International Questions, Minutes and Memoranda 1918-234 (LP/IAC/1/91 and ibid. no 170)
In a draft memorandum, the same Committee argued that the case for a mandate in Armenia was immensely stronger than in any other part of the Turkish Empire, though, just because it would be “onerous and not lucrative” it seemed unlikely to be accepted by any Great Power. Written in 1919, it proved to be an accurate prediction
In 1921, the Committee strongly blamed the Allies for having sacrificed the Armenians to their own interests. Had they followed a “wise foreign policy,” “if they had been prepared to give up their own policy of plunder-they could have obtained all that could reasonably be demanded including that freedom for Armenia which they had promised to secure. They have sacrificed the Armenians to their own self-aggrandisement.” It has to be said however that the Labour Party did not bring pressure on the government for effective help to Armenia
20. Oliver Baldwin (Prime Minister Baldwin’s son) also believed that the desertion of Armenia by Britain would not have happened had there been oil wells in Armenia. This view was shared by many humanitarians. These advocates for Armenia like Aneurin Williams thought that recognising “majorities made by massacre” was absolutely intolerable.
21. The final nail in Armenia’s coffin happened at the end of the Second World War when the Soviets attempted to regain Kars and Ardahan for Armenia. Churchill opposed this for fear of extending Soviet Power. In 1946 when debating this issue, Bevin replied for the government that “there is no longer any nationality problem in the region”(i.e. Turkish occupied Armenia), in a sense agreeing that by the success of the genocide of the Armenian population, Turkey had a right to these territories.

22. Today’s denial of the Armenian Genocide for selfish financial, economic and strategic reasons by Britain is a continuation of Britain’s pro-Turkish policy since Disraeli

Մուդրոսն առանցքային տեղ ունի Մեծ Բրիտանիայի` 1915-1923թթ. ամոթալի վարքում ( մաս առաջին)

Հրատարակված՝ «Արարատ» ռազմավարագիտական կենտրոնի կայքում

———————————————————-

Մեծ Բրիտանիայի վարչապետին, արտգործնախարարին, Եվրոպայի հարցերով նախարարին (տկ. Քերոլայն Ֆլինտին), Խորհրդարանի պատգամավոր պրն. Դեյվիդ Քամերոնին, Խորհրդ. պատգամավոր պրն. Վիլիամ Հեյգին, Խորհրդ. պատգամավոր պրն. Նիկ Քլեգին, Խորհրդ. պատգամավոր պրն. Էդ Դեյվիին, Խորհրդ. պատգամավոր պրն. Ալեքս Սալմոնդին, Խորհրդ. պատգամավոր պրն. Ադամ Փրայսին

«Հայ Համակամություն»

Նոր Սերունդ Մշակութային Միություն

Մեծարգո պարոն,

Այս շաբաթ լրանում է 1918 թվականի հոկտեմբերի 30-ին Մուդրոսում Թուրքիայի հետ կնքված զինադադարի իննսուն տարին. զինադադար, որը կարելի է անվանել հայերի և ասորիների նկատմամբ գործած Մեծ Դավաճանություն: Դիմում ենք Ձեզ պատշաճ հատուցման հնարավորությունը նկատի առնելու խնդրանքով: Ասորիների համար հայրենիքի բացակայությունը և Թուրքիայի կողմից Արևմտյան Հայաստանի շարունակվող բռնազավթումը հիշյալ զինադադարի ուղղակի հետևանքներն են: Ասորիները, հատկապես, ենթարկվեցին հետագա նոր մասսայական ջարդերի` Մեծ Բրիտանիայի միջամտությամբ Իրաք պետության ստեղծման արդյունքում` կենտրոնաձիգ մի պետություն, ուր չկային փոքրամասնությունների պաշտպանության երաշխիքներ: Այն իրողությունը, որ Խորհրդարանի միայն երկու պատգամավորներ են ստորագրել 1933 թվականին Սիմելում ասորիների կոտորածի 75-րդ տարելիցը հիշատակող նախնական խնդրագիրը, մեր անցյալ պատասխանատվությունների նկատմամբ ունեցած մեր ընտրովի մոռացկոտության ապացույցն է: Սույն կոտորածը տեղի ունեցավ Մեծ Բրիտանիայի մանդատի ավարտից կարճ ժամանակ անց:

Երկու շաբաթ առաջ, Մոսուլում, քրիստոնյա ասորիների ու հայ քրիստոնիաների նոր ջարդը պետք է անհանգստացնի մեր խիղճը: Մենք կոչ ենք անում Ձեզ` թույլ չտալ, որ Մեծ Բրիտանիան շարունակի այս հարցում իր մշտական պիղատոսյան դերակատարությունը:

Նախքան Թուրքիան որևէ առաջխաղացում կարձանագրի Եվրամիությանն անդամակցելու ուղղությամբ` պետք է արձագանքել այդ երկրում շարունակվող մշակութային Ցեղասպանությանը, որ իրականացվում է հայկական ու ասորական ժառանգության կանխամտածված ոչնչացմամբ, մինչդեռ բռնի իսլամացած հայերի սերունդը շարունակում է ապրել իր ինքնության բացահայտման վախով:

Խդրում ենք, որպեսզի մեզ անձամբ հանդիպեք` վերոհիշյալ հարցերը Ձեզ հետ քննարկելու նպատակով:

Հարգանքներով,

Էյլան Վիլիամս

Խաչիկ Վարդանյան

Բագրատ Նազարյան

Comments RSS