Armenia, a martyr nation: A historical sketch of the Armenian people from traditional times to the present tragic daysGabrielian, Mugurdich Chojhauji
History
Armenia, a martyr nation: A historical sketch of the Armenian people from traditional times to the present tragic days
Gabrielian, Mugurdich Chojhauji
Armenia; Armenian question
“The annual (Synodical) meeting was to have been held in Adana. So
the pastors and delegates of the churches were on the road to the
north and east of that city when the trouble began. We have now the
names of twenty-seven killed with the particulars of their deaths.
Twenty-two churches are left pastorless. It is a fearful blow. Our two
missionaries, (Henry) Maurer and Daniel M. Rogers, bring the number up
to twenty-nine.”
There was a general impression at the time of the massacres of Adana,
that the butchery and plunder in the cities, towns, and in the
villages, were due to the reaction, that, “The mutiny and the massacre
were the last stroke of the dying monster Sultan Abdul Hamid.” It
appeared plausible, and it was even probable. But it was and is firmly
believed by others that it was the work of the Young Turks.[151] They
did not dethrone Abdul Hamid because he was too cruel to his Christian
subjects. Oh! no. They dethroned him, because they wanted to have
the glory of finishing the work of the extermination of the Armenian
nation. The Young Turks are the legitimate successors of Abdul Hamid,
so far as the latter’s determination to annihilate the Armenians was
concerned, and this massacre was another step towards their goal. It
may be questioned why they should do such a thing at such a time. The
answer is that, because there was an easy and plausible way of shoving
off the responsibility for the crime on the monster Sultan Abdul
Hamid.[152] We are told that Talaat Bey boasted that he had done more
in destroying the Armenians in thirty days than Abdul Hamid in thirty
years. It is, moreover, stated that when Talaat Bey gave the final
signal for the massacre and deportation of the Armenians in 1915, he
said, “After this there will be no Armenian question for fifty years.”
There would be no Armenian question if the Young Turks intended to
rule and run the government according to the Constitution. Armenians
would have been satisfied even under the monarchy had they received
what was promised to them, namely, religious liberty, the protection of
their lives, honor, and property. These, oft-made promises fulfilled,
there could be no Armenian question. Why should the Young Turks resort
to the cruel process of annihilation of a nation to solve such a
simple problem? We have to repeat Vambery’s words: “The conviction
is inevitable that until the power of _Islamism is broken_ the true
reformation of this land is an impossibility.” (Whether the government
is monarchical or constitutional, it made no difference.) “At whose
door shall we lay the blame of cherishing such a _viper_? (First at
England’s, now at Germany’s.)”
FOOTNOTES:
[150] Greene, “Leavening the Levant,” pp. 41-2.
[151] It was established. See _The New Armenian_, N. Y., August 1,
1916, p. 260.
[152] Abdul Hamid died on the 10th of February, 1918.
XVII
THE REIGN OF THE YOUNG TURKS
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account