Germany, Turkey, and Armenia. Anonymous

from Turkey, first the Armenians, then the Greeks, then the Jews, and finally the Europeans.” One of the Ministers of State boasted that he would have attained in three weeks what Abd-ul-Hamid failed to accomplish in thirty years.

      The excuses brought forward in a number of successive official statements made by the Turkish Government for the purpose of stifling the consciences of their wilfully credulous German Allies are summed up in the Memorandum. The substance of this summary appears from the following statement, in which the contrast between the accusation and the real facts is pointed out under each head:—

      1. One Garo Pasdermadjian, a Russian Armenian, is vaguely alleged to have joined certain volunteer corps in the district of Erzeroum. (All the positive acts ascribed to him are connected with the doings of the Russian Armenians.)

      2. Two Armenians are alleged to have—on the instigation of the British authorities—caused a train in Cilicia to go off the rails. (In the Turkish official statement dated 4th June, 1915, in which this accusation is made, a preliminary observation appears, to the effect that the Armenians “of Cilicia had done no act which could have disturbed the public peace and order, or could have necessitated any repressive measures”).

      3. The Commanders of English and French warships are accused of having placed themselves in communication with Armenians of Adana, Alexandretta, and other places on the coast, for the purpose of inciting them to rebellion. (No evidence is produced as to this accusation, and it is not even alleged that the attempt complained of had any success.)

      4. The resistance of the Armenians of Zeitoun to the Turkish authorities is referred to. (The events at Zeitoun are well known. Turkish Gendarmes had taken possession of some Armenian young women; twenty young men had thereupon come to blows with the Gendarmes and had barricaded themselves in a monastery some distance away from the town. The town was then surrounded by soldiers and the whole population of the town was deported.)

      5. It is made a complaint that four “Hintchakists” were involved in a plot against the Turkish Government organized by the party in opposition. (The plot was started in 1912, and had been discovered before the outbreak of war. The “Hintchakists” were active as a revolutionary Armenian party in the nineties, but in 1913 the Turkish Hintchakists repudiated all connection with any revolutionary movement; the four Hintchakists in question were Egyptian, Armenians, and had been arrested before the outbreak of war.)

      6. It is stated that Armenians in Van and other places hear the south-eastern corner of Lake Van, had risen in arms against the Government. (The events in this district are well-known; there was no premeditated resistance; but the violence of the Turkish and Kurdish soldiers, which caused many inhabitants to cross the Russian frontier, also caused some occasional acts of resistance.)

      7. The occupation of the Castle Rock at Shabin-Karahissar by 500 Armenians is made another ground of complaint. (This happened after the town had been surrounded by soldiers, who had been summoned on account of the excitement caused in the town by the execution of a citizen and the threats of deportations.)

      The far-fetched character of the justification of the outrages is laid bare by the analysis given above, which is a summarised reproduction of the criticism contained in the German scholar’s Memorandum. The old maxim, “Qui s’excuse s’accuse,” is particularly appropriate in this instance. The deliberate character of the policy of extermination is only seen with greater distinctness through the flimsy cloak of pretexts which is intended to conceal it. The result is described as follows in the German Memorandum: “What has happened, is an eviction carried out on the largest possible scale, affecting 1½ millions of citizens, who by their pertinacity and capacity for work have had the greatest share in the development of the economic progress of the country.”

      Some persons in Germany seem to think that the fate of the Armenians was due to the fact that the continued co-existence in the same country of races so antagonistic to one another as the Turkish and Armenian is impossible in the nature of things; but this is most emphatically denied by the author of the Memorandum, who asserts that in this instance the Government did not even make use of its favourite method of inciting one part of the population against another part, but carried out its scheme by the sole agency of administrative measures.

      The author of the Memorandum is no doubt himself actuated entirely by humane and high-minded feelings, and the very fact of his taking such a very strong attitude on the Armenian question reveals an amount of courage which calls for unqualified admiration; but he evidently knows that many of his countrymen require more tangible inducements for abandoning their callous or hostile attitude on the Armenian question. He therefore calls attention to the serious loss which not only Turkish economic life but also German trade interests will suffer, if the extermination of the Armenians is to be carried to the bitter end. He shows that the Turks are absolutely without any talent for trade and industry, and that the legend about the dishonesty of the Armenians and Greeks as opposed to the honesty of the Turks has no foundation in fact of any sort. He says that many German merchants are under the impression that their customers in Turkey are Turks, while in reality they are Armenians, Greeks, or Jews. The Greeks apparently are chiefly concerned with export trade, while the import trade is mainly in the hands of Armenian merchants. The German exporters, who give longer credits than others, are of course interested in the solvency of their customers, but many of them are ignorant of their nationality, and—starting from the notion that everyone who wears a fez is of Turkish nationality—they think that they are dealing with Turks. These exporters will have a rude wakening when the true facts become known to them. The Memorandum, by way of illustration, mentions one firm of importers in Constantinople who sell goods to 378 customers residing in 42 towns in the interior. The total amount owing by these customers at the date when the information was given, was nearly £14,000, which sum had to be written off as lost, as all the 378 debtors, with their employees and with their goods, have vanished; they are either dead or wander about as beggars on the borders of the Arabian desert.

      During the Balkan war some members of the Young Turk Committee tried to damage the trade of the Armenians and of the Greeks by means of a boycott, which was put into operation with the aid of the Government. The rural population, which was in this way compelled to make their purchases in Turkish shops only, obtained bad goods at increased prices, and returned to the Armenians and Greeks as soon as the boycott was raised.

      The Memorandum quotes a report, dated 15th August, 1915, and made by the American Consul at Aleppo, which sums up the result of the deportations of the Armenians in the following passage:—

      “As 90 per cent. of the trade into the interior is in the hands of the Armenians, the result is that the country has to face economic ruin. As the greater part of the commercial transactions are credit transactions, hundreds of business men of high standing, though not themselves Armenians, have to face bankruptcy. In the evacuated localities, barring a few exceptions, there will not be a single mason, smith, tailor, carpenter, potter, tentmaker, weaver, shoemaker, jeweller, chemist, doctor, lawyer, or any other person engaged in trade or in a profession; the country will, in fact, be in a helpless position.”

      The author of the Memorandum winds up the section relating to the effect of the deportations on Turkish trade with the following passage:—

      “The popularity of the—otherwise unpopular—war may have been temporarily increased with the Turkish populace by the annihilation and spoliation of the non-Mohammedan population, more particularly of the Armenians, but partly also of the Syrians, the Greeks, the Maronites, and the Jews; but the more thoughtful Mohammedans will, on perceiving the net result of the damage suffered by their country, regretfully lament the economic ruin of Turkey, and come to the conclusion that the Turkish Government has lost incomparably more by the internal warfare than it can ever gain by external victories.”

      As regards the “moral consequences” of the Armenian massacres, the German scholar says that they will not be properly felt till after the end of the war. He means by that, that the civilized world will then wake up to the horrors of the deeds which have been perpetrated by the Turkish Government. He continues: “The world will not allow itself to be persuaded by the contention that strategical considerations had required the deportation of half a million of women and children, wholesale conversions to the