Erich Feigl- Armenian Mythomania
Armenian Mythomania – Illustrated Expose by Erich Feigl
Armenian Extremism: Its Causes and Historical Context . .
© 2007 Erich Feigl
DEDICATED TO THE MEMORY OF MY FRIEND ERDOGAN ÖZEN
Anatomy of a senseless crime: On Wednesday, June 20, 1984, the labor and social affairs attaché of the Turkish Embassy arrives at work at 8:45. He parks his car beside the embassy building, greets the policeman on duty . . . and then a remote-control bomb explodes. The car is thrown into the air and lands upside down. . .
Erdo¤an Özen is dead . . . his body charred beyond recognition. The 62-year-old policeman, Leopold Smetacek, is caught in the flash of fire from the explosion … He will wrestle with death for months, his face totally burned. A number of passers-by are injured. The “Armenian Revolutionary Army” – ARA – once again claims “responsibility”. The assassin is undoubtedly convinced of the “justice” of his deed. He probably has no idea of the true story behind the tragedy of his people in the First World War. All he knows is the lessons he has had drilled into him about the “Terrible Turk”. History – misunderstood history – as the motive for inhuman behavior – that is unique to the world of terrorism.
ARMENIAN ISSUE ALLEGATIONS-FACTS
Turkish Diplomats Killed by Armenian Terrorists
Date City / Title Name – Surname
27.01.1973 Santa Babara / Consul Mehmet BAYDAR Consul General Bahadir DEMIR
22.10.1975 Vienna / Ambassador Danifl TUNALIGIL
24.10.1975 Paris / Ambassador Ismail EREZ Driver Talip YENER
16.02.1976 Beirut / First Secretary Oktar CIRIT
09.06.1977 Vatican / Ambassador Taha CARIM
02.06.1978 Madrid / Ambassador’s Wife Necla KUNERALP Retired Ambassador Beflir BALCIOGLU
12.10.1979 The Hague/ Ambassador’s Son Ahmet BENLER
22.12.1979 Paris / Tourism Counselor Yilmaz ÇOLPAN
31.07.1980 Athens / Administrative Attaché Galip ÖZMEN Administrative Attaché’s daughter Neslihan ÖZMEN
17.12.1980 Sydney / Consul Sarik ARIYAK Security Attaché Engin SEVER
04.3.1981 Paris / Counselor for Labor Affairs Reflat MORALI Counselor for Religious Affairs Tecelli ARI
09.06.1981 Geneva / Secretary M. Savafl YERGÜZ
24.09.1981 Paris / Security Attaché Cemal ÖZEN
28.01.1982 Los Angeles / Consul General Kemal ARIKAN
08.04.1982 Ottawa / Counselor for Commercial Affairs Kani GÜNGÖR
04.05.1982 Boston / Honorary Consul General Orhan GÜNDÜZ
07.06.1982 Lisbon / Administrative Officer Erkut AKBAY
27.08.1982 Ottawa / Military Attaché Atilla ALKIKAT
09.09.1982 Bourgas / Administrative Attaché Bora SUELKAN
08.01.1983 Lisbon / Administrative Officer’s Wife Nadide AKBAY
09.03.1983 Belgrad / Ambassador Galip BALKAR
14.07.1983 Brussels / Administrative Attaché Dursun AKSOY
27.07.1983 Lisbon / Wife of the Counselor Cahide MIHÇIOGLU
28.04.1984 Tehran / Wife of Secretary Iflik YÖNDER
20.06.1984 Vienna / Labor and Social Affairs Attaché Erdogan ÖZEN
19.11.1984 Vienna / UN Official Enver ERGÜN
07.10.1991 Athens / Press Affairs Attaché Çetin GÖRGÜ
11.12.1993 Baghdad / Administrative Attaché Çaglar YÜCEL
04.07.1994 Athens / Consul Haluk SIPAHIOGLU
A Personal Foreword
“Have you gone crazy?” – “Are you tired of living?” These were the comments of friends and acquaintances when they heard that I was working on a book about the causes and historical context of Armenian terrorism. Why should be the one to take on such a dangerous subject?. . .
Shouldn’t it be a matter for the Turks and Armenians to work out among themselves? All of my friends considered my project dangerous, even threaten ing, and I realized that it must be these concerns, these fears, that have until now prevented unbiased accounts of the historical reality behind Armenian terrorism from appearing. People are obviously afraid of reprisals and therefore leave the whole issue to the advocates of reckless violence, who control virtually all the literature on the subject. In virtually every publication that discusses the Armenian question or Armenian terrorism, the authors plead for “understanding” toward terror. This is just as remarkable as when terrorist organizations claim “responsibility” after an attack.
With this “responsibility” – or rather with the perversion of this noble concept – they pretend to have “power” by creating the illusion of “justice”, and with this legitimation they play fate, shoot down the reluctant and black -mail the hesitant.
It is not only human beings who have fates, however, but films and publications as well. HABENT SUA FATALIBELLI, “books have fates”, wrote Terentianus Maurus around 200 A.D., and in the preceding verse he says resolutely, “PRO CAPTU LECTORIS”, “according to the grasp of the reader”.
I had two key experiences in this connection following the appearance of the German edition of this book. The first was with a very high official of the Armenian Orthodox (Gregorian) Church of Central Europe who, in the course of a meeting with the (Catholic) Mekhitarists (who truly have nothing to do with this statement), said to my face, “How dare you set the worthless Turks off against the dead Armenians in your book!” When I asked in horror if I had understood correctly, he repeated even more vehemently, “Yes, I said the worthless Turks!” The Armenian view of history is for the most part shared by the public at large. That is no surprise, and it should not be taken as a reproach.
While doing the background research for this book and for my films, I took great pains to collect information from a broad spectrum of sources. In so doing, I met many people to whom I owe the deepest respect: His Beatitude the Armenian Apostolic Patriarch Snork Kalutsyan of Istanbul, for example, and the doctors and nurses of the Armenian hospital in the same city. I mention these people here in lieu of the many, many noble Armenians whom I know – from scholars and intellectuals to the Armenian farmers and their families who live on Musa Dagh, made famous by Franz Werfel. I did, of course, also meet other people in the course of my research work. I especially recall Dr. Gerard Libaridian, the head of the Armenian Zorian Institute.
I spent several hours with Dr. Libaridian in his office in Cambridge, Massachusetts and had an extremely interesting conversation with him. Dr. Libaridian is a brilliant man, bubbling with vitality, knowledge, talent, and self-confidence. One could write a very compelling play based on my conversation with him.
I kept notes of my host’s most provocative statements in this fascinating discussion. Several times he mentioned the so-called “Andonian papers”.
Since it seemed reasonable to assume that Dr. Libaridian knew that the papers were forgeries, I did not want to waste a single word on the subject. There were so many other, more interesting things to talk about. But remarkably enough, he stuck with Aram Andonian’s book and its “documents”. Finally, I had to say, “But Doctor Libaridian, you know as well as I that these ‘Andonian papers’ are forgeries!”
I will never forget Dr. Libaridian’s answer or his facial expression as he replied simply and briefly to my reproach: “AND?”
committed by Armenia in
26 February 1992.
“A N D ?”
By Afif Erzen, Istanbul
It is hard to imagine anything that could be as detrimental to the search for historical truth as mixing stories with history – or worse yet, confusing one for the other. A similar error involves the confusion of politics with the use of violence. All too often, such confusions are the result of interest groups (seldom of peoples, who al ways want peace) laying claim to their “historical home land”. Such “historical demands” have always meant war, or at least terrorism, an ugly variation on war. The right to sovereignty and independence can only be seen as legitimate when it is bound up with the rights of a majority.
Anything else would contradict our commonly recognized democratic principles. Even the Armenian apologists for an “Armenian state” on Turkish territory clearly share this way of thinking. This is demonstrated by their support of the Greek Cypriots over the Turkish minority. Many people try to give a superficial glimmer of “legitimacy” to the contemporary Armenian claims to Turkish lands in eastern Anatolia. These people are simply ignoring the fact that those demands violate the law of nations and international law since virtually no Armenians what – so ever live in the regions claimed. The standard counter-argument that Armenians once lived in these areas is indeed correct, but it fails to consider one important fact: Even before 1915, the Armenians only made up a small minority (roughly a sixth) of the population in the land claimed by them. This minority had not enjoyed any kind of national sovereignty since long before the arrival of the Seljuks in Anatolia – in other words, for nearly a millennium. Aside from that, the Armenian minority was in a “state of war” with their own Ottoman government in 1915. The Armenians’ own national leaders confirmed this repeatedly. They had started a civil war that had produced a genuine bloodbath among the Islamic inhabitants in eastern Anatolia, mainly in Van.
Another myth, which is equally detrimental to historical truth, involves the attempt to justify Armenian claims to eastern Anatolia on the basis of the alleged “descent” of the Armenians from the Urartians. In virtually every publication put out or supported by the Armenian side, there appears, in one form or another, a certain picture of history. This picture gives the impression that the history of the Haik – as the “Armenians” call themselves – in eastern Anatolia goes back to the second millenium before Christ. This impression is created by simply tacking the history of the Urartians onto that of the Haik. This is made much easier by the fact that many people today confuse the inhabitants of the historical province of Armenia with “the Armenians”, who actually call themselves “Haik”, as mentioned above, and are only one of the countless groups that have lived in the historical region of Armenia in the course of history. This appropriation of the history of Urartu is the final attempt of certain Armenian historians and propagandists to bridge the gap between the Haik and their political and historical claims to the historical province of Armenia. This effort was begun after an older attempt, claiming that the Haik were the first legitimate heirs of Noah (based on the Ararat legend), failed due to sheer ludicracy.
The foundation inscription of Sardurihinili was discovered in incredibly good condition by Afif Erzen. It was written in Urartian, an Asian, agglutinative language showing strong similarities to the Ural-Altaic language family and in particular to Turkish. The inscription has been translated by Emin Bilgiç (sumerologist at Ankara University):
Line 1 Sardur, son of Argishti, -built- this temple for the god Irmushini. -So says Sardur. –
Line 2 Because I ascended my father’s throne, says Sardur something of this nature has- never been built -in past times-.
Line 3 I -built up- a temple throne for the god Haldi there. For the god Irmushini and for this fortress
Line 4 I have -had- a canal from the Hoshap River -built, and with- wine gardens, fields and vegetable gardens. I have Line 5 surrounded this town. These magnificent -buildings I have erected there my self -. Line 6 As the name of the town, I have chosen Sardurihinili (Sardur City). Sardur says . . .
Line 7 Village houses which were here before I have built here anew for all time. Line 8 I have -dedicated- this town to the god Irmushini, and the gates to the god Haldi because of the wealth.
Line 9 The son of Argishti (Sardur II) built this temple with the help of the greatness and power of the god Haldi.
Line 10 mighty king, I great king, I great king (sic!) of the Biai lands*. The master of this city and of Tushpa, Sardur am I.
Assyrian origin. The Assyrian king Salmanassar (1274-1245 B.C.) reports that he undertook a campaign against the Urartians in the first years of his reign. The inscription tells us of no less than eight countries and fifty-one cities which the king (in the year 1274 B.C.) claims to have destroyed. This would indicate a dispersal of the Urartians in the mountainous regions of eastern Anatolia.
The Assyrian king Tukulti-Ninurta I (1244-1208 B.C.) later reports on the conquest of Nairian lands (Nairi and Urartu appear to have been largely identical) and the defeat of forty kings who resided in the area of Lake Van. These were undoubtedly princes of Urartian and Nairian tribes, who ruled between the Euphrates and Lake Urmia, with the area around Lake Van as a natural center. They must have been of Hurrian or proto-Urartian origin.
At the beginning of the sixth century B.C., the lands once ruled over by the Urartians became the cause of a dispute between the Lydians and the Medes. The Medes finally won out. This appears to have been the time when the Armenian tribes immigrated to eastern Anatolia. They probably came from the Balkan area or from Thrace and had been driven out by the Illyrians. They were first mentioned in an inscription of Darius in the sixth century B.C. At this time, they already belonged to Darius’ sphere of influence. During the course of time their Indo-European language took on certain traces of the old, non-Arian Anatolian languages, but that certainly did not make the “Haik” “Urartians”. The Armenians can be considered as more or less “related by marriage”. They have no linguistic or ethnic connection to the greater Hurrian-Urartian family, which comes from the Asian linguistic sphere. The Turkic peoples, on the other hand, share common roots with the “proto-Turkish” peoples of the Hurrian-Urartian world. These facts were completely irrelevant to later developments and to the peaceful co-existence of so many peoples and races in eastern Anatolia, especially in the days of the Ottoman Empire. All ethnic groups in the Ottoman Empire enjoyed equal standing. In fact, no one ever even asked about “ethnic” background. It was of absolutely no interest to the Sultan-Caliphs.
URARTIANS: THEIR LANGUAGE AND THEIR HERITAGE
We learn from the Assyrian records that, as early as 1274 B.C., Salamassar I (1274-1245) invades the land of the Urartu, destroying eight countries and fifty one cities. The land was apparently divided into several feudal states lacking a central authority. According to Prof. Goodspeed, Shalmaneser crossed the waters of the Upper Tigris and marched along the southern spurs of the (Taurus) mountains to the head-waters of the Euphrates, where the chief peoples conquered by him were the “Arami”, the Arameans of the western Mesopotamia. His son, Tukulti-Ninurta I (1244-1208), conquered the “Nairians” in eastern Anatolia, defeated forty kings, put the lands of the Upper Sea (Lake Van) under his dominion and forced them to pay tribute. Tiglat-Pleser who describes in his inscriptions a victory (1114 B.C.) over a united force of twenty-three Nairi princes, mentions also the name of Urartu together with that of Mushki and Milit. We have already referred, in Chapter 7, to the Nairi indicating the possibility that they may be the Neuri of Herodotus, a Scythian tribe. We also pointed out our belief that the Nairi is represented in the Scriptures under the name of Nahor, brother of Abraham and father of Uz. We had also analyzed the name and showed that its etymology was Turkish: singular Nair (Neur, Nahor – ´n-air (´n-eur, ´n-ahor) – Turk. On-Ur/On-Gur/On Oghur (“Ten Oghur”) which is a name given later to the Hungarians.
The domination of East and Southeast Anatolia by the Assyrians thus continued for a few centuries. By 900 B.C., a new situation is observed: “Civilization was on the rise again in eastern Asia Minor where appeared the “Kingdom of Urartu”, a native kingdom that worshipped Hurrian gods, including Teshup, and spoke a language akin to Hurrian; its people were excellent builders and workers in metal, who on a Hittite [really Hattia / Hurrian] foundation developed more brilliant culture than this region has ever known.”
The people of the land of Urartu called it Khaldia after the name of its god Khaldis, but to the Assyrians it was known as Urartu or Uruatri. During the reign of Sardur II (764-735) the Urartian state reached its most extensive limits. Remains of Urartian settlements have been found in the lands extending from Gökçegölü-Bayburt in the north, Malatya in the west, Aleppo and Mousul in the south, and Lake Urmia or even the Caspian Sea in the east. Assyrian king Sargon II, in 714 B.C., intended to deal with the threat of the Urartians. Althrough he defeated Rusa I, who committed suicide, and made peace with them, he declared in his inscriptions that the Urartian army had the best-trained horses in the world. “In advancing, wheeling, retreating, or battle disposition, they are never seen to break out of control.” The Assyrians in this battle had probably the help of the Cimmerians.
According to Prof. Erzen, the Hurrians and the Urartians had their roots in the same ancient eastern Anatolian Chalcolithic culture and that they might even have come as two branches of the same race having a language neither Semitic nor Indo-European but rather an Asian language agglutinative in general form. In fact, the Urartian, due to its word creating capacity by adding suffixes to a given root, has similarities with the Ural-Altaic languages. Further, the gods and the goddesses of the Hurrians and the Urartians arre of the same origin. For example, Teisheba, one of the main geities of the Urartians, is the Hurrian chief god Teshup the Storm-god. The wives of these gods are Huba and Hepat respectively. Urartian sun god Shivini is identical to the Hurrian Shimigi. Capital city of Urartu, today´s “castle” of the city of Van, was Tushpa, related to the goddess Tushpuea. Oldest Urartian cuneiform inscriptions found are from the end of ninth century B.C. However, Aramaic inscriptions are also found in the ruins of the Urartian city of Teishebaini (Karmir Blur) which was apparently destroyed by the Scythians. The effect of the Urartian script, together with their culture and civilization, on the neighboring peoples is also stressed by Prof. Frye who notes:
“It has been suggested that one must look for the origins of much of the Achaemenid art, architecture and even state protocol and writing in Urartu.”
We have shown below, in the glossary, that the names of Urartian gods and goddesses, of their cities, and of their kings, whose names in order of their rule are Aram / Aramu (ab. 840 B.C.), Lutipri (father of Sarduri I), Sarduri I (830-825 B.C.), Ishpuini / Ushpina (825-815), Menua I (815-790), Argishti I (790-765), Sardur II (764-735), Rusa I (735-714), Argishti II (714-685), Russsa II (685-645), Sarduri III (645-635?), Sarduri IV (635?-?), Erimena (father of Rusa III) and Rusa III (last years of the 7th century B.C.), all can be explained in Turkishwords and grammatical syntax. Additional words including some geographical names such as Guguna, Khubushkia, Kulha are also analyzed in the glossary where the Urartian entries are shown in bold letters, Turkish transliterations in italics, and loanwords in normal letters.
Some significant examples:
Persian loanword: that has, holds, possesses, See: Sarduri / Sardar-in /-nin / ning “of”, Turkish genetive. See: Rusahinili, Sardurhinili
Lord, master. Am /Arame / Aramu Hurrian prince who fought with the Assyrian king Salmanasar in about 858 B. C.., united the Naurian and the Urartian feudal princedoms in about 845 B. C. And ruled over the Urartian lands between the sources of the Euphrates and the sources of Tigris. All, totally, entire, to make perfect. See: Urartu
Capital city of Arame king of Urartu [Arzashuk Turk. Arz-azuk “sacred land, sacred city,” with Arabic loanword arz “earth” and Turk. Azuk/uzuk “sacred, holy”. Urartian city founded by Argishti I possibly, -Türk Er-e-bunu ” (I built) this (city) for the men”
Name of three Urartian kings. Sardur I. (840-83o B. C.) , the real founder of the Urartian kingdom who built the capital Tushpa, today´s Van castle. Turco-Persian “holder of the top, general, commander” with Sumero-Persian: Chief, head, top, summit. Assyrian name for the Urartians – Türk. Unaru “man/men-total; men perfect” or Uri-ortu” men of the center, men of the army; or – (G)ur-arti = “perfect Oghur” opr Uri-arti = “perfect Hurrians” with Turk. Ortu/ordu “city of the king, the court, the center, the camp, the army” Sumerians knew the Hurrians under the name of Uri.
The message is clear, best documented at Sardurihinili, today the village Çavufltepe, located exactly at the same spot as the Urartian village, carefully excavated by Afif Erzen:
“Virtually no signs of Armenian settlement have been found there, aside from Urartian inscriptionstones which have been turned into Christian-Armenian tombstones.”
The basic historical falsification at the heart of the entire Armenian myth of terror is the constantly repeated claim that the Ottoman government had one and a half million Armenians put to death. In Montebello, the authors of the inscription on the Armenian memorial go one step further. They claim that the genocide was perpetrated “by the Turkish government”, although in 1915 there had never been a Turkish government. The point of this exercise is clear.
Modern Turkey is supposed to be linked to matters that did not even apply to the Ottomans. The fact is that after the uprisings in Mufl and Van, in March of 1915, an order to relocate the Armenians was issued by the Ottoman government. The uprisings had caused tens of thousands of Muslim casualties and amounted to a declaration of civil war. Many Armenians died in the turmoil of the war and in the constant revolts.
The Islamic losses were nevertheless many times greater. Up to this day, no one has asked about the fate of the Muslim victims of the riots instigated by Armenian terrorists.
A giant spider, cast in concrete – monument to a distortion of history, Montebello, California. Falsehood turned to stone. It is a monument to a cruel myth – the myth of the ‘Terrible Turk”. Heca tombs of innocent people have already been sacrificed on this altar of ultra-nationalistic sentiment. The reason for spreading the message of the Terrible Turk and the war of liberation is the same now as it was in the nineteenth century: the establishment of an Armenian national state in Anatolia, a place where the Armenians have never in history been in the majority.
Like every fanatical cult, the Armenian version of the myth of terror has its own scriptures. These consist of the “Documents officiels concernant les Massacres Armeniens”, published by Aram Andonian in 1920, and Franz Werfel’s Forty Days of Musa Dagh, a novel based entirely on the Andonian documents. The “Documents officiels” are supposed to prove that the Ottoman government issued a general order to exterminate the Armenians, but it has been firmly established that these “documents” were forged from beginning to end. Not even the ringleaders of the Armenian anti-Turkish campaign dispute this today. The liturgy of the Armenian terrorists is limited to the constant, litany-like repetition of false casualty figures – a difference of a million or two one way or the other has never seemed to matter much – and the offering of human sacrifices. Those selected for these sacrifices include not only Turkish diplomats, but also historians who fight against the distortion of history and wealthy Armenians who refuse to pay their tribute to the terrorists. But the terror also strikes people who have nothing whatsoever to do with the conflict. They just happen to get caught at the scene of execution of an Armenian terrorist group.
Armenia: Myth and Historical Reality
“… and in the seventh month, on the seventh day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.” So says the Bible. Later, God speaks to Noah, “Go forth from the ark, you and your wife and your sons and your sons’ wives with you. Bring forth with you every living thing that is with you of all flesh – birds and animals and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth -that they may breed abundantly on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply upon the earth.” The early Armenian chroniclers, Moses of Khorene, Thom as Ardzrouni and others, wrote that the Armenian people were the descendants of Noah, whose ark landed on Ararat. They apparently overlooked, in their holy zeal, that if anyone at all truly comes from Noah, then all man – kind must be descended from him. Some countries take their name from their inhabitants. France, England, Germany or Turkey are home to French, English, Germans or Turks respectively.
Names of countries such as America, Bolivia and Ecuador, on the other hand, designate a geographical area without making any reference to the origins of the people who live there. In antiquity, there were many names for the provinces of Anatolia, and these names were also applied to the inhabitants of each province. Some examples are Paphlagonia, Pamphylia, and Cappadocia. The inhabitants of such provinces were by no means all members of a single tribe. They simply had a common name based on the area in which they lived. As with so many other place names, the name “Armenia” designates a geographical region, not a people. The Armenians call themselves “Haik” in their own language. This already indicates that the area known as Armenia is in no way their place of origin. Just where the “Haik” (singular “Hai”) do come from is not exactly clear. Everything indicates that they migrated from the West and finally settled in small groups east of the Euphrates. The language of the Armenians is for the most part Indo-European. After their migration, however, it became mixed with non-Aryan, Anatolian languages. Some scholars (such as J.
Karst, author of Die vorgeschicht-lichen Mittelmeervolker) believe that Armenian or proto-Armenian tribes once lived on the northern Aegean in northern Thessaly and neighboring Illyria, in other words in the Balkans. A similar view holds that the Armenians are descendants of Phrygian-Thracian tribes who migrated to the East as a result of Illyrian pressure. Although it is virtually certain that the Armenians originally lived in the Balkans or in Thessaly, the exact date of their migration to Anatolia cannot be pinpointed with certainty. They did not leave any traces of their presence in their original home land, but it was certainly not before the sixth century B.C. that the Armenians arrived in Anatolia.
At the end of the fifth century (401^00 B.C.), Xenophon writes in his Anabasis of the Armenians in connection with other Anatolian tribes. The very first mention of the Armenians anywhere is to be found in the trilingual (Iranian, Babylonian, and Elamitic) inscription of Behistun in western Iran, in which the Persian king Darius (485 B.C.) lists Armenia as one of his satrapies. This first written record could be seen as having symbolic significance, in light of the fact that the Armenian communities almost never in their history rose above the status of satrapies, or at best semi independent principalities.
The Prehistoric Cultures of Eastern Anatolia –
A Key to The Understanding of The History of Anatolia
From the geopolitical standpoint, eastern Anatolia has played a key role in world history. To the south lies Mesopotamia. (The Tigris and Euphrates rivers both have their sources in the mountains of eastern
Anatolia!) To the east is Iran; to the north, the Caucasus; and to the west, central Anatolia. The cultural puzzles of eastern Anatolia, including those of the Urartians and their predecessors the Hurrians, have only recently been solved. Because of the unique location of this region, these cultures are very closely related to the surrounding cultures of Iran, Mesopotamia, and central Anatolia.
Until the second half of the twentieth century, virtually nothing was known of the prehistoric settlement of eastern Anatolia. When ancient cave paintings were discovered in western Europe, they were thought to be the oldest examples of human artwork anywhere. Then cave drawings were discovered on the steppes of Asia and in Africa. It was only recently that Turkish archeologists discovered very old, dense settlements in eastern Anatolia. The highland of the area provided the hunters and gatherers of the time with everything they needed: dense forest; plenty of wild game; and water. The sensational discovery in the last years of innumerable rock drawings in eastern Anatolia suddenly threw an entirely new light on the understanding of the early development of this region. The depictions of gods, worshippers, animals, and hunters are in some cases 15.000 years old. The rock drawings of eastern Anatolia are found primarily in four districts: around Malatya-Ad›yaman; near Kars; in the region around Van; and in the mountains of Hakkari. Dr. Oktay Belli, member of the Turkish Historical Society (Türk Tarih Kurumu), discovered the rock drawings of the Van region, which were done between 15.000 and 7.000 B.C. In the region of Yedisalk›m, in the Hakkari Mountains, there are also prehistoric pictures of gods in the caves high above the valley floor. Concerning the people who created these works of art, there exist some very clear indications. Similar rock drawings have been found in eastern Azerbaijan, in Kobistan, in the Altai region, and in Siberia. The density with which these rock-drawings occur shows beyond a doubt that they are of proto-Turkish origin. The people who made these drawings belonged to early nomadic and semi-nomadic Turkish tribes. A similar conclusion can be drawn in the case of the stylized drawings from the Gevaruk Valley (Hakkari) and those on the Plateau of Tirshin. The rock drawings of Gevaruk and Tirshin are of particular significance because they bear a strong resemblance to the drawings and symbols in the Cunni cave, near Erzurum, and on the stone blocks of the temple of Zeus in Aizani (Çavdarhisar, near Kütahya). They were done by ancient Turkish clans of the region. The latest discoveries demonstrate clearly that there was already a connection in prehistoric times between eastern Anatolia and the artistic and cultural centers of the steppes of Azerbaijan and Siberia, as well as the mountainous regions of the Altai -the original homeland of the Turkic peoples. From prehistoric days right up to modern times, wandering and seminomadic Turkish and proto-Turkish tribes have formed a living tie between Inner Asia and Anatolia. Asia is the home of the yurts. “Yurt” is a Turkish word meaning both “tent”, “home” and “motherland”. Bee-hive houses, similar to yurts, can be seen in Anatolia. They are a creation of the Hurrians, predecessors of the Urartians, whose realm lay between the Caucasus, Lake Urmia, and the region around Malatya-Elaz›¤. Various local names have been given to this cultural zone. These include “Kura-Aras Culture” and “Karaz Culture”. The creators and upholders of this culture spoke a language belonging to the Ural-Altaic family, to which Turkish also belongs. Early Hurri Culture together with Hurri Culture formed the foundation for the Urartian kingdom which followed. A characteristic feature of Hurrian culture was the round house, similar to the round tents of the semi-nomadic Hurrians. Round houses of the Hurrian type can still be seen today in the region of Urfa and Harran.
The later Turkish domed buildings of the Ottoman period would appear to be a logical development from the yurt and the bee-hive house. It was the Greeks and the Romans who developed the techniques for constructing large domes, but the enthusiasm with which the Ottomans adopted these techniques is undoubtedly related to the ancient preference of the Turkic peoples for round houses and yurts.
Anatolia has known many masters: Hittites under the sign of the double eagle; Persians; Alexander the Great; Greeks; Romans; Byzantines; Arabs; Mamluks; and finally Seljuks and Ottomans. They all ruled over the historical region of “Armenia” in eastern Anatolia. The name of this region has nothing to do with the claims of the Armenians (who call themselves “Haik” and probably came originally from the Balkans). The Haik never constituted a majority in this region.
The “devil worshippers” who have their places of worship in the mountains of eastern Anatolia and in the Zagros Mountains of Iraq were one of the most remarkable religious communities of the Ottoman Empire. Their cult, which has many shamanistic elements, combines aspects of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Zoroastrianism. Although they could hardly be called “People of the Book” in the sense intended in the Koran, they have managed to preserve their peculiar character through all the vicissitudes of history.
The Nestorian Christians, who did not recognize the decision of the Council of Ephesos to call Mary “Mother of God”, would have been totally rubbed out by the power of the Byzantine state and the Greek Orthodox Church, had they not found protection and refuge under the Zoroastrian Persians and later under the Ommiad, Abbaside, and Ottoman Caliphs. Disaster did not befall them until they, like the Armenians, made common cause with the Russians and stabbed the God Apollo Nemrut Mountain Turks in the back during World War I. They were forced to retreat from the Hakkari Mountains. The majority of them, roughly 40,000 Nestorian Christians (they call themselves “Church of the East”), live today in Iraq. Their present fate is unknown.
The Holy Koran, Sura 11/62: Those who believe (in the Quran), /And those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), / And the Christians and the Sabians, – / Any who believe in God / And the Last Day /And work righteousness / Shall have their reward / With their Lord: on them / Shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. The Koran mentions the Sabians four times. The Jews and Christians are also “People of the Book” and have always been respected as such by Islam.
Following the conquest of eastern Anatolia by the Arabs, the Caliphs of Damascus became the masters of the Armenians. Sümela Monastry-Trabzon.
The Nestorian Christians, who did not recognize the decision of the Council of Ephesos to call Mary “Mother of God”, would have been totally rubbed out by the power of the Byzantine state and the Greek Orthodox Church, had they not found protection and refuge under the Zoroastrian Persians and later under the Ommiad, Abbaside, and Ottoman Caliphs. Disaster did not befall them until they, like the Armenians, made common cause with the Russians and stabbed the Turks in the back during World War I. They were forced to retreat from the Hakkari Mountains. The majority of them, roughly 40,000 Nestorian Christians (they call themselves “Church of the East”), live today in Iraq. Their present fate is unknown.
Seljuks, Mongol Invaders and Ottomans
Emperor Romanus IV Diogenus (1068-71) was a skillful and circumspect general. He was left with the task of trying to cover the mistakes that the “Bulgar-slayer” and “Monomachus” Constantine had made in their frenzy of excessive expansionism . . . and he failed. The people living in the eastern part of the Byzantine Empire were tired of endless taxation and loathsome religious pressure. They greeted the Turkish Seljuks as a lesser evil, if not as liberators. Near Mantzikert (Malazgirt), only a few hours march north of Lake Van, the deciding battle between Seljuks and Byzantines was fought. It ended in a total defeat for Romanus Diogenus, who was the first Byzantine emperor ever to be taken prisoner. The chivalrous victor, Alp Arslan, made a treaty with Romanus IV Diogenus, but as soon as he was back in Constantinople, the emperor met with a typical fate of the kind that has made Byzantine politics proverbial.
The traitorous opposition burned his eyes out with hot irons, in spite of written quarantees that had been counter signed by the church. “It was only this monstrous postlude that turned the defeat of Mantzikert into a true catastrophe,” writes Georg Ostrogorsky, because this made the treaty between Alp Arslan and the emperor Romanus IV was null and void. The way was now open for the Turkish Seljuks. Just two years later, Konia (central Anatolia, now Konya) was the capital of the Seljuk Empire of Rum. Armenian traders and craftsmen, known for their fine talents, were already following their new rulers – and enjoying an unprecedented religious and social freedom.
Two generations later, the devestating Mongol invasion brought the blossoming Seljuk Empire of Rum to an abrupt end. In 1236, it was the Mongols who laid waste to flourishing Ani, not the Turkish Seljuks, who suffered just as much under the Mongol invasion as all the other peoples of eastern and central Anatolia. In an “official publication” of the “Catholicosate of Cilitia”, published in Lebanon, the following passage appears: “In 1065, when the Armenian kingdom fell simultaneously with the destruction of its capital, Ani, by the Seljuks . . .”. It is no wonder then that countless Armenians who read the publications of their churches in good faith do not know the truth about the fall of the last semi-independent Armenian principalities in eastern Anatolia, which took place decades before the arrival of the Seljuks.
Armenian terrorism: History is both poison and antidote. Historians usually contribute little or nothing to discussions of present-day terrorism. Middle-East historians have especially avoided comment on Armenian terrorism, preferring topics more remote and less likely to shoot back. However, in considering Armenian violence, history cannot be ignored, for history is both the cause of Armenian terrorism and its only cure. Armenian terrorism is rooted in a false view of history. Only by correcting that view will Armenian terrorism be defeated. I therefore wish to suggest a method not usually used to combat terrorism: the study of history.
Each terrorist needs a raison d’etre – a philosophy and a cause for which he can kill and die. History usually plays a part in this, both because terrorists often look back to an idyllic past in which all was well with their people, and because terrorists almost always remember real or imagined historical injuries and vow vengeance. But the main wish of terrorists is always to free their people from foreigan bondage. That was the case with the Viet Kong, and that is the case today with the I. R. A. Today’s Armenian terrorists are unique in that history, or at least their version of it, is their only real justification. In recent days I. R. A. seems to be of “minorr” importance. Same for the “freedom fighters” of Sardinia, Kosovo or Spain´s problem with the ETAseparatists. Also the most cruel events in the Middle East made Armenia´s criminal attack against Azerbaijan somehow forgotten. But the refugees from Western Azerbaijan will never forget. And the Turks will never forget the Armenian ruthless accusations.
For the Armenian terrorists, there are no people to be “liberated”.
The Armenian terrorists have only one cause: revenge – revenge for what they see as mistakes made by the other side (the Turks).
I began by stating that the best weapon against Armenian terrorism is the study of history. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say: The best weapon is the truth. Then perhaps we could make the words of the late Gregorian patriarch of Istanbul Snork Kalutsian might become true:
“May all those unhappy events which take place in every country have an end. May the Peace of God be with all people of good will.”
A Personal Foreword 7
Urartians: Their Language and Their Heritage 12
Armenia: Myth and Historical Reality 18
The Prehistoric Cultures of Eastern Anatolia –A Key to The Understanding of The History of Anatolia 19
Seljuks, Mongol Invaders and Ottomans 26
Jews in the Ottoman Empire 28
The Greek Orthodox – Patriarchate 30
The Armenian Orthodox Patriarchate 32
The Triumph of the Ottomans in Eastern Anatolia and Cilicia 38
The Causes of the Armenian Tragedy 39
The Rivalry Among the Churches and Sects to Win the Favor of the Ottoman Armenians 39
The Beginning of the End -The Formation of a Protestant 41
The Catholic Armenians 41
The Nineteenth Century: A Golden Age for Armenians and Ottomans, in Spite of the Beginnings of Nationalistic Agitating from Abroad 46
Great-Power Politics and the Armenian Question 50
It´s only one step from myth and mythology to mythomania 56
Mark Sykes, the Zealots of Zeitun and the Reckless Revolutionaries 62
The Mechitarists as a Special Kind of Victim of Armenian Terror 67
The truth about the present-day Mechitarists of San Lazzaro 68
Nationalism Spreads From the Church to Secular Organizations 70
The Bab- Ali Demonstration, the Hunchaks, and the Kusaktsakan 72
One df theclimaxes of Armenian terror: The raid on the Ottoman Bank 74
The Armenians’ Last Chance – Blown by the Dashnaks 76
May 17, 1915 The Armenians invade Van and set fire to the Muslim part of the town 79
The Relocation Decision: Its Causes and Consequences 81
The Armenian myth of victimhood stands or falls on two legs: the date April 24, 1915, and Franz Werfel’s literary masterpiece,
“The Forty Days of Musa Dagh”. 88
The Anglo-French Attack on Constantinople, through the narrows and across the sea Marmara, was now imminent. Date: April 24! 91
The mountain of Moses and the lowlands of Alma and Franz Werfel 97
Alma, the alter ego of Franz 98
The poet and his world 100
The bed-sheets of the Musa Dagh-fighters 105
Werfel´s substratum of “truth” 106
A Gang of Forgers 108
The Forgeries of Aram Andonian and Johannes Lepsius 110
The Collapse of the Central Powers and the Continuing Resistance of the Ottoman Empire 117
The Turmoil of a War That Would Not End 120
The Wars of the Republic of Armenia 123
The Reconquest of Kars and the End of Armenian Expansion 126
An Equally Tragic Sequel on the Southern Front 128
The Treaties of Gümrü, Moscow and finally Kars 130
The End of the Armenian-Greek Invasion 131
Terrorism as Bloody Real Fantasy-War 136
The Armenian Terrorist Organizations 139
The Political Background of the Armenian Terrorist Organization ASALA 140
Some examples of Armenian tirades of hatred: They poisoned worldwide public opinion. A myth of mental terror. 142
Water and oil Turkey, the energy bridge of the third millenium 144
Armenia´s war of aggression against Azerbaijan: a barrel burst 144
The strange inherent similarity between the sons of William Tell and those of Haik: Mythomaniac teachings on descent 145
Grounds for the judgment 147
A masterpiece of gnorance 150
Genocide – Holocaust – Teror 154