İngiliz Parlamenterlere Gönderdiğim 11 Mektup


*** 1 ***
Subject: Prejudice should not lead the House of Common
Dear and Honorable Member of the House of Commons,
It is now public knowledge that Mr Tim Loughton, MP put forward a Bill on 9 November 2021 for the recognition of hardships experienced by Armenians in Eastern Anatolia during World War I as “genocide”. In the light of this, I am writing to you, as well as to a number of House of Vommons, to draw attention to some facts.
The UK archival records, in particular the Malta Tribunal documents are the most credible reference source about what happened in Eastern Anatolia during World War I.
Officially held at the British Foreign Office National Archives, these records are free from biased and backed up with first-hand facts, data, and evidence. They depict war tragedy but offer no proof of Armenian genocide.
The British Foreign Office documents of the Malta Tribunal (1919-1921), conducted by Britain’s highest legal prosecution authority, Her/His Majesty’s Attorney (Prosecutor) General for England, and Wales in London, was closed in judgement of with the “evidence in hand” none of the Turks prisoned in Malta could be prosecuted on the grounds of the Armenian massacre.
Although the UK archival records refute Armenian genocide claims judicially without any question, the House of Commons British Parliament is asked to accept a political genocide resolution that oft-cites Armenian allegations derived from dubious and prejudicial sources.
Armenian allegations are habitually led by religious, racial, and surely political prejudices. Particularly religious based prejudices have turned the Armenian allegations to some sort of a one-sided pro-Christian story.
Prejudices are symptoms of a diseased political culture – in fact, a political culture that threatens the very concept of politics itself. In addition, using prejudices as a mirror for political purposes pose a grave threat to democracy.
I believe, prejudices cannot lead the House of Commons.
Britain is widely considered as the leading democracy in Europe. No other country has such a unique history with democracy as that of your country.
Consequently, every dignified honourable member of the House of Commons, in her/his capacity as a leader and influencer, has the greatest historical and ethical responsibility, to call out racism, hate, and injustice from their decisions. This needs to cross-examine the proposed genocide resolution and dismiss the religious, racial, and political prejudices where found.
This attempt to search for the truth requests an educated way of thinking described by the futurist Alfred Toffler:
“The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.”
I’m sure, if the UK archival records are learned, unlearned, and relearned, this will be a crucial chance to find where the truth lies on the tragic events that took place during World War I in Eastern Anatolia.
Yours sincerely,
Uluc Gurkan
Lecturer in Politics –
[email protected][email protected]
0090 312 4198777 – 0090 532 2180758

• Deputy Speaker-Turkish Grand National Assembly/TGNA (1995-1999)
• Vice President-Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe/PACE (2000-2002)
• Vice President-Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe/OSCE-PA(1992-1995)
• Head of the Turkish Delegation-Parliamentary Assembly of the Western European Union/WEU-PA (1999-2002)
Member- Turkish Grand National Assembly/TGNA (1991-2002)
Middle East Technical University and Ufuk University (2003-….)

*** 2 ***
Subject: Armenian Issue – British Realism and Credibility
Dear Honorable Member of the House of Commons,
In recent 30 years, the Armenian portrayal of the tragic war-time clashes in Eastern Anatolia from spring 1915 through autumn 1916 as the first genocide of 20th century, has been blindly accepted by some 30 western parliament. Although Armenian’s this version of history is one-sided and steeped in prejudice, certain western parliaments perceived it as a complete history and an undeniable reality, without fact checking.
British Parliament is a remarkable exception among western powers that have recognized the so-called Armenian Genocide.
During the World War I years and afterwards, the British tried to use every opportunity to try and sentence every Turk they arrested for the “killing of local Christian people”. Still, they were not biased. Lord Curzon, the then Foreign Minister, admitted in the House of Lords:
“It must be owned the Armenians during the last weeks did not behave like innocent little lambs, as some people imagine. The fact is they have indulged in a series of attacks and proved blood-thirsty people.”
The Times, on March 19, 1920, gave an account of these blood-thirsty atrocities…
As the country that knows best what happened in Eastern Anatolia during World War I, Britain has undeniably declared till now with realism, and above all, with integrity and credibility that the events of 1915-1916 cannot be described as genocide
In late 1990s, when Western parliaments were recognizing Armenian genocide claims, the UK was also asked to do the same. British Spokesperson of Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale rejected such demand in a speech dated 14 April 1999 delivered on behalf of the British government:
“…in the absence of unequivocal evidence to show that the Ottoman administration took a specific decision to eliminate the Armenians under their control at the time, British governments have not recognised the events of 1915 and 1916 as ‘genocide. …we do not believe it is the business of governments today to review events of over 80 years ago with a view to pronouncing on them… These are matters of legal and historical debate.”
The Armenian genocide lobby maintained its pressure, ultimately resulting in the Armenian genocide allegations being addressed during a Holocaust commemoration ceremony held in London on 27 January 2001.
In a press conference held in Ankara on 22 January 2001, Britain’s Beverley Hughes, then parliamentary under-secretary of state in the department of the environment, transport, and the regions, stated that only the Holocaust would be addressed during the ceremony and made the following declaration in Istanbul:
“A while ago, the British government reviewed evidence put forth on the Armenian allegations and examined documents on the events of 1915-1916. The decision is that these events do not correspond to what is defined as genocide by the UN. This is the attitude of the British government, and this will never change.”
In a response to a question on this matter, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Baroness Scotland told the House of Lords on 7 February 2001:
“The Government, in line with previous British Governments, have judged the evidence relating to events in eastern Anatolia in 1915-1916 not to be sufficiently unequivocal to persuade us that these events should be categorized as genocide as defined by the 1948 UN Genocide Convention.”
Here the million-dollar question is to be answered; “What evidence was judged, and which documents were examined by the British governments?”
“Malta Tribunal” of 1919-1921, conducted by Britain’s highest legal prosecution authority, Attorney General for England, and Wales in London is the answer.
It goes without question that the British Attorney General’s ruling of July 29, 1921 corresponds to a “judgement of non-prosecution” which means, “there is no legal evidence to support the Armenian massacre claims, so there is no legal basis to file or bring a lawsuit.”
Malta Tribunal is the historical and judicial fact that about the Armenian allegations and this cannot be discredited by prejudiced political or legislative decisions.
Yours sincerely,
Uluc Gurkan
Lecturer in Politics –
[email protected][email protected]
0090 312 4198777 – 0090 532 2180758

*** 3 ***
Subject: The final “nulle prosequi’ of the ‘Malta Tribunals’ of 1919-1921
“Fraud and falsehood only dread examination. Truth invites it.”
Thomas Cooper (1759-1839)
Dear Honorable Member of the House of Commons,
It is important to ask this question before considering Timothy Loughton MP’s private members bill which is scheduled to be heard on the 22nd of March 2022.
How did Great Britain deal with Armenian Massacre claims at the time?
The British archival records of the Malta Tribunal (1919-1921) are key to establishing that the alleged Armenian genocide is a farce as it has no historical and judicial basis. United Kingdom’s highest legal prosecution authority, Prosecutor General describes it as a war tragedy but offers no proof of Armenian massacres.
Malta Tribunal should not be overlooked, disregarded, and forgotten on the dusty shelves of history:
Following World War I, in 1919-1920, the Ottoman government organized a series of court-martial to prosecute war criminals. However, these trials were a travesty of justice. They were not fair and free. There were false witnesses, exaggerated testimonies, and other irregularities.
Admiral Calthorpe, the British High Commissioner in İstanbul reported to London that the Ottoman trials were “proving to be a farce and injurious to our own prestige and to that of the Turkish government.” Admiral John de Robeck, Admiral Calthorpe’s successor, informed London of the futility of continuing the trials with the remark; “Its findings cannot be held of any account at all.”
Consequently, Ottoman justice was replaced with the Western justice by moving the trials to Malta as “international” prosecution based on Articles 230 and 231 of the Treaty of Sevres on “Armenian massacre” allegations.
Then a total of 144 Ottoman officials and military personal were arrested and deported to Malta as prisoners of war. The aim of this act was “to trial and sentence the Turks” on the grounds that they had “perpetrated mass killings against Armenians”.
The judicial prosecution was conducted by United Kingdom’s highest legal prosecution authority, Prosecutor General’s office for England, and Wales in London.
Despite the British government’s every effort to hold s court trial and sentence the Turks detained in Malta, there was no evidence that a British court of law would consider sufficient proof against them was found. On July 29, 1921, the British prosecutor general announced to the British Government that with the “evidence in hand”, none of the Turks in Malta could be prosecuted on the grounds of the Armenian massacre:
“… The charges made against the Turks named in the Foreign Office list are of quasi-political character”, and “no statements have been taken from witnesses who can depose to the truth of the charges made against the prisoners… Without… the production of evidence of a character which alone could be admissible before an English Court of Justice… it seems improbable that the charges made against … the accused will be capable of legal proof in a Court of Law.”
Malta Tribunal was then closed in judgement of nulle prosequi, which amounts to a dismissal of charges by prosecution. In modern law this ruling corresponds to a “judgement of non-prosecution” which means, “if there is no legal evidence to support the Armenian massacre claims, there is no legal basis to file or bring a lawsuit”.
Malta Tribunal is of the end of the beginning for the genocide allegations. As the United Kingdom Prosecutor General’s hearing constitutes the first step to a court trial, the outcome of the Malta Tribunal is a final judicial decision consistent with the relevant description of 1948 United Nations Genocide Convention. Therefore, absolving the Ottoman Turks that “the “Armenian massacre”, or currently termed “genocide” allegations do not exist.
Mr Tim Loughton’s Bill, besides ignoring all these officially archived historical and judicial facts is also undermining the United Kingdom’s highest legal prosecution authority at the time, H.M. Attorney General Sir Gordon Heawart. Attorney General’s judicial decision cannot be replaced by political prejudices.
Yours sincerely,
Uluc Gurkan
Lecturer in Politics –
[email protected][email protected]
0090 312 4198777 – 0090 532 2180758

*** 4 ***
Subjecy: Why diminish the importance and uniqueness of the Holocaust!
Dear Honorable Member of the House of Commons,
Armenian genocide lobby argue that the World War I tragedy in Eastern Anatolia was the same as what happened to the Jewish people in Nazi Germany.
Can this really be justified? This is what Bernard Lewis, the world’s foremost eminent British-American Jewish historian of Orientalism, Islam, and the Middle East says on the subject:
“This is a downright falsehood” and adds: “Armenians as well as the Turks suffered and perished in equal measure…”
“What happened to Armenians was the result of a massive Armenian rebellion against the Turks, which began even before war broke out and continued on a larger scale…”
“The Armenians are proud of their struggle for an independent Armenia against the Ottoman regime. It was a national liberation movement, and they fought with great courage. But what happened to the Armenians has no similarity to what happened to the Jews in cold-blooded bureaucracy.”
“Armenians had an armed rebellion: They collaborated with Russians against the Turks. They killed many in Van that they seized and held for a while to hand it over to the invaders. Ottomans were very careful by not hurting Armenians in the deportations. There is clear evidence of a decision by the Turkish Government, to deport the Armenian population from the sensitive areas. Which meant naturally the whole of Anatolia. Not including the Arab provinces which were then still part of the Ottoman Empire. There is no evidence of a decision to massacre. There was guerrilla warfare all over Anatolia. The illegal groups, and others may have attacked Armenians later and caused casualties however this is not related with the Holocaust in Germany.”(1)
The League of Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Fridtjof Nansen described this tragedy at the Sixteenth Plenary Meeting of the League of Nations on September 21st, 1919:
“The allied Western Powers had said to the Armenians ‘If you fight with us against the Turks and if the war ends successfully for us, we promise to give you a national home, liberty, and independence… The Armenians fought for the Allied Powers. Two hundred thousand volunteers sacrificed their lives for the cause of the Entente; but when the Armistice was signed and peace concluded, the promise given to the Armenians were forgotten…”(2)
As Bernard Lewis and Fridtjof Nansen point out, Ottoman Armenians openly and intentionally took up arms, travelled to Russia for training and fought for an independent Armenia. When the war broke out, they sported Russian and French uniforms and fought against the Ottoman Army. Non-uniformed Armenian irregulars/bandits also fought against the Ottoman army from behind the lines.
Therefore, no possible similarity can be established between the Ottoman Armenians and German Jews.
“… to make this a parallel with the holocaust in Germany, you would have to assume the Jews of Germany had been engaged in an armed rebellion against the German state, collaborating with the allies against Germany. That in the deportation order, the cities of Hamburg and Berlin were exempted, persons in the employment of the state were exempted, and the deportation only applied to the Jews of Germany proper, so that when they got to Poland they were welcomed and sheltered by the Polish Jews. This seems to me a rather absurd parallel.”
Jews of Germany were not engaged in an armed rebellion against the German State. They were not collaborating with the allies against Germany. Moreover, Jews did not demand the dismemberment of the nation in which they lived.
Besides, the Ottoman government had no intention of exterminating the Armenians as no such evidence exists, while the Armenian genocide lobby insists on this with falsified documents and basing it on the discredited propaganda “Blue Book” and discredited author Tamer Akcam’s books.
On the 1st of March 1920, the “note verbale” released by Sir Eric Drummond, Secretary General of the League of Nations, British politician, and diplomat, declared that “in Turkey, … massacres carried out by irregular bands who were entirely outside the control of the Central Turkish Government.” (3)
Contrary to all this, the Armenian genocide lobby want to compare their tragedy with the Jewish Holocaust. They seek to benefit from the use of the word. But this only leads to diminishing the significance and uniqueness of the Holocaust.
There is ample evidence, recognized by a competent International Court proving that genocide was committed in Nazi Germany against the Jews. The Tribunal at Nuremberg proved the guilt of the perpetrators of the Holocaust and sentences were carried out in accordance with agreed-upon procedures.
Therefore, the Holocaust is an undisputable historical fact.
On the contrary, Malta Tribunal, which was convened by the World War I victors and conducted by Great Britain’s highest prosecution authority, H.M. Attorney General Sir Gordon Heward (4), acquitted those Ottoman Turks who were alleged to have been responsible for the misrule of the Armenian relocation policies.
Yours sincerely,
Uluc Gurkan
Lecturer in Politics –
[email protected][email protected]
0090 312 4198777 – 0090 532 2180758
1 Bernard Lewis – with Buntzie Ellis Churchill, Notes on a Century:Reflections of a Middle East Historian (Viking;2012) pp. 3325-338)
2 Leage of Nations, Sixteenth Plenary Meeting, September 21th, 1929 ( the Turks, We Promise to Give Them National Home, Liberty and Independence (League of Nations Official Gazettee: Şükrü Server Aya, Twisted Law versus Documented History, pp. 7-8
3 Şükrü Server Aya, Twisted Law versus Documented History, (Belfast: Athol Books, 2013) p. 5
4 Sir Gordon Heward : H.M. Attorney General (Jan.10, 1919-March 6, 1922) – Lord Chief Justice of England (March 8, 1922 – Oct. 12, 1940)

*** 5 ***

Subject; Genocide is a legal term, and it can only be established legally
Dear Honorable Member of the House of Commons,
In relation to the debate (Vol. 703) brought to the session of the House on the 9th of November 2021, by Mr. Tim Loughton, it is important to remember that genocide is an internationally agreed legal term. It is not a loose and ambiguous political concept.
The United Nations 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines the crime of genocide and establishes the legal framework for genocide atrocities. This Convention was unanimously adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948 and then ratified in 1951 when it went into effect as a judicial ruling.
Since then, the UN Genocide Convention signifies the international community’s commitment to “never again” after the atrocities committed during the Second World War.
Therefore the genocide accusations should neither be politicized nor popularized loosely and ambiguously. Categorizing a historical or a current event as genocide is not something to be arrived at through the personal or legislative decisions as some country’s Parliaments seem to have done.
UN Genocide Convention
The act of genocide, to be a crime, has to be proven under defined circumstances outlined in articles 2-6 of the Convention.
Article 2 and 3 of the Convention categorize the atrocities that ought to be punished under the Convention as genocide. These atrocities of genocide are those “acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”
Special Intent The key element distinguishing the crime of genocide from other crimes is the “intent to destroy”. For genocide to have any legal validity, there must have been an “intent” on the part of perpetrators to wipe out an entire ethnic group. Therefore, without proven “intent to destroy”, no act can be legally valid as genocide.
In the literature of law, the special intent called “dolus specialis” is necessarily sought in all genocide accusations.
Articles 187, 188 and 189 of the International Court of Justice’s Bosnia ruling explicitly state that “a separate notional element must be present” to define an act as genocide. This notional element is also present in the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia’s (ICTY) Kupreskic case as “the need for the presence of intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a group.”
The “note verbale” released on March 1, 1920, by Sir Eric Drummond, Secretary General of the League of Nations, confirms that there is no evidence for that in the case of the Armenians.
Individual Criminal Responsibility – Article 4 of the Convention relates to the “punishable atrocities of genocides” to the individual criminal responsibility. According to this article, “genocide” is a crime that can only be committed by “real persons. Therefore, only real persons – not legal entities – can be charged with the crime of genocide.
Court Ruling – Another important element distinguishing the crime of genocide from other crimes is that, for an event to be considered genocide, there should be a court ruling. This element – court ruling – is defined in Article 6. It reads, “trial of persons charged with genocide” as “by a competent / adequate-qualified tribunal of the state in the territory of which the act was committed” and “an international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction.”
Without a fair judicial trial by a defined court or tribunal, characterizing a historical event as genocide through personal or legislative decisions is a highly political and politicized act. It has no value in terms of international law. This has been confirmed by international jurisprudence. The European Court of Justice, in Dec. 17, 2003, and April 17, 2004, ruled in that the recognition of the “Armenian genocide” by the European Parliament “is a political measure with no judicial value.”
On the contrary, H.M. Attorney General Sir Gordon Heward’s Malta Tribunal Judgement which acquitted the Ottoman Turks who were alleged to have been responsible for the misrule of the Armenian relocation policies have its judicial value as defined by the United Nations 1948 Genocide Convention.
Uluc Gurkan
Lecturer in Politics –
[email protected][email protected]
0090 312 4198777 – 0090 532 2180758
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), 2007 I.C.J. 140 (February 26, 2007), available at ijudgment_ 20070226_frame.htm (last visited Nov. 4, 2007
Şükrü Server Aya, Twisted Law versus Documented History, (Belfast: Athol Books, 2013) p. 5
“Order Of The Court (Fifth Chamber)of 1 October 2004in Case C-379/03 P: Rafael Pérez Escolar v Commission Ofthe European Communities” (Official Journal of the European Union, January 22, 2005), 2005/C 19/19),
FO 371/6504/E.8745
*** 6 ***

Subject: To portray Turkish Nation as perpetrators of genocide constitutes “hate speech”
Dear Honorable Members of the House of Commons,
Timothy Loughton MP’s private members bill which will have a second reading on the 18th of March 2022 regarding the recognition of “Armenian Genocide” is not supported by history and law.
Genocide is a legal term internationally defined by the 1948 UN Genocide Convention. Article 4 of the Convention classifies crime of genocide as committed by persons, not by a state. And according to article 6, this crime must be heard and proven by a specific court.
Without a fair judicial trial, parliaments – e.g., the House of Commons – has no legal and legislative authority for characterising a historical event as genocide.
Moreover, Timothy Loughton’s bill portrays Turkish Nation as perpetrator of genocide, contrary to the framework of the Convention and sadly demonstrates the characteristics of an anti-Turkish, anti-Muslim hate speech.
Hate speech is defined by United Nation’s as “any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor.”
In many instances, there can be specific negative effects of hate speech. Hate-motivated violence is the most serious effect. The Cambridge Dictionary underlines this violence effect of hate speech as follows: “Public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.”
Hate speech can spread the seeds of intolerance and anger that contribute to “hate crime”. It should not be forgotten that a total of 77 people – 58 of them Turkish nationals, including 31 diplomats and members of their families who lost their lives in attacks were carried out by Armenian terrorist groups from 1973 to 1986.
I believe, it is extremely important for the House of Commons not to promote a so-called reason for such hate crimes.
Furthermore, instead of real persons, to characterize Turkish Nation as perpetrators of genocide is a double standard – a double standard that occurs in the context of racial and religious prejudices.
For example, for war crimes in Sudan, not Sudan or Sudanese, but Al-Bashir himself has been accused. In the International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia under the UN Genocide Convention, only “real persons” accused of “genocide” were tried in courts. As perpetrators of the Srebrenica massacre, not the Serbian Nation, but the Serbian leaders and some of their commanders were held responsible and sentenced.
As it is a well-known fact that for the Holocaust in the Second World War Germany or the German people are not blamed on any grounds. Hitler and other Nazi leaders are accused as individuals. Also, it can be clearly seen in the recent examples of Rwanda, Sudan and Bosnia-Herzegovina that for actions which can be defined as “genocide,” the criminal responsibility is directed against real persons, not on nations.
It is highly noteworthy that this important judicial clause is discounted when the debate is on the “Armenian genocide” allegations. Instead of real persons, Turkey and Turkish Nation is portrayed as the target, contrary to all the legal guidance.
Double standards should not guide and lead us. We must overcome our prejudicial double standards, especially in the context of intolerances and eliminate all our discriminatory racial hatreds.
Yours sincerely,
Uluc Gurkan – Lecturer in Politics –
[email protected][email protected]
0090 312 4198777 – 0090 532 2180758

*** 7 ***
Subject: What happened in 1915 Armenians was a “war tragedy”, not genocide.
Dear Honorable Member of the House of Commons,
Besides Ottoman archives, British, French, Russian and League of Nation’s archived documents confirm that the Ottoman government did not intend to exterminate the Armenians. The 1915 war-time decision on the relocation was since the Armenian armed rebellion and cooperation with the invading Russian army.
Professor of Military History Edward Ericson’s carefully researched study “Ottomans and Armenians” provides irrefutable evidence that the relocation, planned as a military precaution to head off an Armenian uprising against the Ottoman state with volunteer troops on the battlefield and gangs behind military lines, during the Russian occupation of Eastern Anatolia, created many victims.
“It was self-defense for the Turks” says Professor Ericson and adds: “The Ottoman Government had every right to protect the lives of their Muslim subjects who constituted most of the population in the areas selected for declaration of their autonomous state of Armenia.”
Additionally, Ottoman court-martials of 1915-1916 historically prove that Armenian relocation was not a planned march to death.
1,673 Ottoman subjects, 975 civilian bandits from irregular bands, together with 528 government officials and 170 local officials, accused of alleged crimes against the Armenians during the relocation of 1915 were put on trial and sentenced by the Ottoman 1915-1916 court-martials.
Can you think of a government planning a relocation for the destruction of the Armenians, and yet conducting trials and sentencing hundreds of its citizens and officials for ill treatment to the Armenians while the war is going on?
It is illogical and unbelievable. What in 1915 was a “war tragedy”, not genocide.
In August 1914, following Germany’s declaration of war against Russia, Armenian Volunteer Units were established under the Russian Caucasus Army. They were primarily composed of Armenians from the Russian Empire, though there were also Armenians from Ottoman Eastern Anatolia.
In November 1914, when Russia declared war to Ottoman State, these well-equipped and trained volunteer units advanced into Ottoman territory together with Russian forces.
Boghos Nubar, the president of the Armenian National Assembly, declared to Paris Conference that the volunteers fighting against Turks were around 150,000 Armenians who were regular soldiers served in the Russian and near 50,000 fighters under the command of irregular Armenian military leaders.
Russian forces had the position of advantage and control at the front. Ottoman forces based in Eastern Anatolia were 126,000 men. Many were poorly equipped to defend a line of more than 600 kilometres. They had only 74,057 rifles, 77 machine guns, and 180 pieces of artillery. The Battle of Gallipoli was draining all Ottoman resource.
Within a few months after the war began, the Ottoman Armenians refused to serve their constituted authority and took the side of Russians. Thousands of Armenian soldiers deserted the Ottoman armies and joined the invading Russian Army. Additionally, behind the battle lines numerous Armenian bands were formed to fight a guerrilla war against Turks.
By the beginning of 1915 thousands of Armenians were fighting behind the lines. These rebellious Armenians, operating in close coordination with the Russians, were working to sabotage the Ottoman army’s war effort by raiding supply depots, destroying roads and bridges, attacking caravans, to ease the Russian occupation.
In April 1915, the Russian armies launched an offensive against Van, in the east, and the Allied troops landed on Gallipoli peninsula, in the west. At that critical moment, on May 27, 1915, the Ottoman Government ordered to remove insurgent rebellious Armenian minority from the war zones along the Eastern Front to the to the Syrian province of the Ottoman State.
Armenian rebellion was a factual threat to the Ottoman State, both on the battle front and behind the lines. Apart from Caucasus, Armenians, for the cause of Entente, have been on the side of the Allies on all fronts.
Armenian volunteers have fought as members of the colonizing French Legions. More than 5,000 Armenians comprised more than half of the French Legion in Palestine. Armenian volunteers also helped the English military forces in Mesopotamia by preventing the Germans and Turks from sending their own soldiers to the other war zones.
Taking into consideration all these points, the then Armenian Republic have been recognized as an established Allied Power of the war against the Ottoman State in the Treaty of Sevres (Section VI “Armenia”, Articles 88-93)
Hovannes Katchaznouni, the first Prime Minister of the Independent Armenian Republic in his report to the 1923 ARF (Armenian Revolutionary Federation) Congress underlines that during the World War I, for colluding with the Russians, Armenians rebelled against the Ottoman Empire and were at war with the Turks with whom they lived in peace and harmony for centuries down the street from each other:
“The Winter of 1914 and the spring of 1915 were the periods of greatest enthusiasm and hope for all the Armenians in the Caucasus… We had no doubt the war would end with the complete victory of the Allies; Turkey would be defeated and dismembered.”
Yours sincerely,
Uluc Gurkan Lecturer in Politics –
[email protected][email protected]
0090 312 4198777 – 0090 532 2180758

*** 8 ***

Subject: Grief of all Anatolian people; Christian, Jewish, and Muslim
Dear Honorable Members of the House of Commons,
One-sided pro-Armenian narrative claims that one and a half million Armenians were deported, massacred, or marched to their deaths in the final years of the Ottoman Empire by Turks.
Although the figures reporting the total pre-World War I Armenian population vary widely, demographic studies prove that prior to World War I, fewer than 1,5 million Armenians lived in the entire Ottoman Empire. British, French and Ottoman sources give figures of between 1,200000 to 1,5 million. Only certain American and dubious Armenian sources claim a pre-war population larger than 1.5 million. Thus, the allegations that 1,5 million Armenians from Eastern Anatolia died must be viewed as grossly exaggerated.
Moreover, the post-war figures of Armenian population also clearly prove that a great portion of the Ottoman Armenians did not die as claimed. Boghos Nubar , the President of the Armenian National Assembly and the head of the Armenian delegation at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919-1920, declared that some 600.000 to 700.000 Armenians were relocated from Anatolia. And after the war 280,000 Armenians remained in the Anatolian portion of the occupied Ottoman Empire while 100,000 of Armenians had emigrated to other countries.
Besides war related causes and intercommunal conflict perpetrated by both Christian and Muslim irregular forces, the totality of documents of the time thus far uncovered by historians verify that during the relocation of Armenians to Syria [an Ottoman province at that time] hundreds of thousands of Armenians had died on account of disease, famine and many other consequences of the war.
With these in mind, even if the fabrications about the Armenian losses are corrected, the revised numbers will not tell us the exact manner of death of the citizens of Anatolia, regardless of ethnicity. They were caught up in both an international war and an intercommunal conflict and vengeful acts instigated by the Dashnaks – the irregular group from which today’s active Armenian Revolutionary Front (ARF) was born. This group aided and abetted the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA), killing more than 42 Turkish diplomats and their families as recent as the nineteen-eighties and promotes such dastardly acts against Turks and their families even today.
Additionally, the corrected numbers will not be the complete story of the 1915 events. Truth demands every side of the story to be told. If only one side of the tragedy is to be accepted while the other side is regarded as perpetrators of the same tragedy, this leads us, without a doubt, into the realms of racial and religious discrimination and of double standards.
Each needless death, either Christian, Jewish or Muslim, is a tragedy. Equally tragic are the double standards designed to inflame discrimination and provoke hatred.
The statistical information tells us that nearly 1,1 million Anatolian Muslims (Turks, Kurds) and Jews also perished because of the same war related events, and this should equally be acknowledged as a tragedy and suffering for all the other peoples. Although the evidence for this is overwhelming and confirms the over a million of loss of life an suffering, the actions of several countries and their Parliaments remember only the Christian deaths and suffering!
What happened during this period cannot be considered solely the grief of the Armenians who were harmed and suffered. It is the grief and suffering of all Anatolian people, Christian, Jewish and Muslim. The politicians who ignore these facts sadly display their bias and discrimination against Turks and Turkish Nation.
The events of 1914-1919 constitute a horrible “war time tragedy” for humanity. Therefore, the pain of Anatolia triggered by the World War I of that period should be shared and, when required, mourned together.
Yours sincerely,
Uluc Gurkan
Lecturer in Politics –
[email protected][email protected]
0090 312 4198777 – 0090 532 2180758

*** 9 ***

Subject: Armenian so-called genocide is not established by a final decision of an any international court
Dear Honorable Members of the House of Commons,
Although Timothy Loughton MP claims that there is a general international consensus characterizing the sufferings of Armenians in Eastern Anatolia during World War I as “genocide”, he is completely mistaken. There is no such consensus which would mean “ultimate acceptance” of the Armenian allegations as ”genocide”.
The Armenian case does not constitute genocide under international law.
The decisions of international judicial authorities, such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ), European Court of Justice (ECJ), European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), and the French Constitutional Court suggest that historic and judicial realities do not confirm the Armenian allegations as ”genocide”.
In its Perincek-Switzerland decision of December 17, 2013, the ECHR ruled that “the treatment of Armenians during WWI cannot be interpreted as genocide.”
According to the ECHR, the 1915 events against Armenians are both historically and legally different from the Holocaust. No link can be established between the Ottoman Armenians and the German Jews.
There is however, ample evidence recognized by competent international courts proving that genocide was committed in Nazi Germany against Jews. Therefore, the Jewish genocide is an indisputable historical fact.
However, the “Armenian genocide” claims are open to debate and there is no court ruling on the issue. It cannot be considered in the same way as the Holocaust.
Extending the scope of genocides which is a precisely defined legal concept, to include cases recognized only in political terms in some countries’ parliaments, in fact works against freedom of speech.
On February 27, 2012, the French Constitutional Council rejected the shameful law approved by the French Senate and Chamber of Deputies that criminalized the denial of the “Armenian genocide.” In its decision, the Council also ruled that “ “No parliament can function as a court relating to a crime defined by itself.”
It has simply ruled against the amendment No 173 to the existing law on “Equality and Citizenship” which was meant to extend the scope of genocides by adding parliamentary recognitions to the list.
In 2003 and 2004, the ECJ characterized recognition of the “Armenian genocide” by the European Parliament as “a political measure with no judicial value.” It also ruled that both the “genocide” and “sustained loss” allegations were not proven.
The ICJ in The Hague – the highest judicial body of the UN, competent to hear war crime cases, including genocide – ruled on January 3, 2012: “Proceedings initiated by local courts against other countries have no judicial value; on the contrary, they are in violation of international law.”
I would hope that the members of the House of Commons bear these important facts and Court decisions in mind when considering Tim Loughton’s argument and decline to pass this meaningless bill.
Yours sincerely,
Uluc Gurkan
Lecturer in Politics

*** 10 ***

Subject: Why did the Armenian genocide allegations gain new momentum in the 1990s?
Dear Honorable Members of the House of Commons,
I would like to point out that the both the timing and reasons for turning the Armenian genocide allegations into some sort of religious hate speech against Turkey are notable.
Armenian allegations gained new momentum in the 1990s with the collapse of the Soviet system and the ending of the Cold War. Besides, they gained a new international dimension, incorporated in the “New World Order” shaped around the idea of “Clash of Civilizations” where Prof. Samuel Huntington emphasized religious differences.
Although they were not directly involved but very much influenced by the Armenian lobby, up to some 30 countries and two international parliamentary assemblies passed a total of 58 parliamentary resolutions on the subject.
One of these allegations was made back in 1915. As part of war propaganda, the Russian, French and British Parliaments blamed Turkey with a joint declaration based on false documents and false accounts. From 1915 to 1990’s, including the 1970’s and 1980’s when Turkish diplomats were mercilessly assassinated, the number of parliamentary declarations were only six. The remaining 51 resolution are a product of the “new world order”.
The first accusation after the ending of Cold War came about in 1993, when Samuel Huntington published his “Clash of Civilizations” thesis in the Journal of Foreign Affairs. After his thesis came out as a book in 1996, foreign parliaments started to declare their accusations one after the other.
This cannot be a mere coincidence.
Huntington had emphasized that ethnic and religious differences, which he defined as the civilization, would become the major fault line in the new world order. Here, the events ending with tragic outcomes, between Armenians against Turks and Kurds during World War I is described as a major example of the conflict of civilizations where the enemy is Islam, supported by the claim that the borders of Islam are drawn in blood.
The Armenian allegations of genocide were brought forward in the international arena within this context. As a result, they have become part of contemporary politics rather than a historical and legal issue which it is.
Beyond that, the clash of civilizations theory has also shaped the fashion with which Armenian allegations of genocide are framed. The accusations of genocide are directed towards Turks as a nation and Turkey as a Muslim country without any justification.
Yours sincerely,
Uluc Gurkan
Lecturer in Politics –
[email protected][email protected]
0090 312 4198777 – 0090 532 2180758

*** 11 ***

Subject: Why the Bill (Vol. 703) brought to the House by Mr. Tim Loughton MP should be rejected at the second reading on the 18the of March 2022?
Dear Honorable Members of the House of Commons,
As you may know that Mr Tim Loughton MP put forward a Bill on the 9th of November 2021 for the recognition of hardships experienced by Armenians in Eastern Anatolia during World War I should be recognised as “genocide”. In the light of this, I am writing to you all to draw attention to some facts.
Britain has been a notable exception among several Western powers which blindly recognized the tragic war-time events in Eastern Anatolia during World War I as the first genocide of the 20th century. Until now British governments and parliamentarians have followed an exemplary foreign policy, guided by integrity and credibility.
According to Genocide Convention adopted by the UN in 1948, a court ruling is required for a historical or current event to be recognized as genocide. Without a fair judicial trial, the coding of any historical event as genocide on the grounds of personal or legislative accounts is a highly politicized act. It has no value in terms of international law. Armenian genocide allegations have not been ratified by any international court or tribunal as defined in Article 6 of the Convention. On the contrary, it was confirmed in the Malta Tribunal that there had never been a Turkish policy to exterminate Armenians.
By the end of World War I, when the victorious British army occupied Istanbul, 144 Ottoman officials and military officers were arrested and sent to Malta as prisoners of war. The judicial investigation lasted for more than two years, while the Crown Prosecution Service gathered evidence to prosecute and “sentence the Turks” for perpetrating “mass killings against Armenians”. As well as transporting the relevant Ottoman archives to London from occupied Istanbul, every document believed to be in America, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, and Caucasia was called for examination. Eventually, on July 29, 1921, Britain’s highest legal prosecution authority, Her/His Majesty’s Attorney General for England, and Wales informed the British Government that without reasonable doubt, and with the “evidence in hand”, none of the Turks in Malta could be prosecuted for massacring Armenians.
There is no doubt that the British Prosecutor General’s ruling to dismiss the Armenian massacre accusations for “lack of evidence” concludes the matter and refers to a legal prosecution process during which the “Armenian massacre”, or currently termed “genocide” allegations, were studiously investigated and found baseless. In modern law this ruling corresponds to a “judgement of non-prosecution” which amounts to saying, “If there is no legal evidence to support the Armenian massacre claims, there is no legal basis to file or bring a lawsuit”.
Britain has since then clearly and irrevocably stated that the events of 1915/1916 cannot be described as genocide. However, some Western parliaments habitually take a prejudicial stance and pass a bill as if they have jurisdiction in the matter. Prejudices are symptoms of an ill-natured political culture which may threaten the very concept of politics and pose dangers to democracy.
The Malta Tribunal is the key to overcome prejudices and to face the historical and judicial facts. The British Foreign Office documents of the Malta Tribunal (1919/1921) which are available in the British National Achieves refute the Armenian genocide allegations. These documents confirm that the wartime tragedy in Eastern Anatolia do not meet the criteria for the definition of genocide by the UN Convention.
On the basis of all these facts, I trust the Honourable Members of the House of Commons will reject the Bill (Vol. 703) brought by Mr. Tim Loughton MP on the second reading on the 18th March 2022.
Yours sincerely,
Uluc Gurkan
Lecturer in Politics –
[email protected][email protected]
0090 312 4198777 – 0090 532 2180758

Cevap bırakın

E-posta hesabınız yayımlanmayacak.