Kuşadası Kalesi Türk'tür

 

Kuşadası Kalesi Türk'tür.

İddia konusu Scalanova Ceneviz kolonisi, esasen hiçbir birincil kaynak veya Ceneviz arşiv belgesinde de mevcut değildir. En başta Balard (1978), Belgrano (1877) ve Bertolotto & Sanguineti (1896) tarafından etraflıca derlenmiş söz konusu tüm kaynaklarda, bu isimde bir ticari koloniye rastlanmaz. Carr (2015), Fleet (1999) ve Turan (2000) gibi araştırmacıların özellikle de Ege kıyılarını 13-15. yüzyıllar itibariyle ticaret, savaşlar ve siyasi ilişkiler gibi farklı yönleriyle ele alan kapsamlı çalışmalarında da Scalanova hakkında hiçbir bilgi mevcut değildir. Anconalı Ciriaco de' Pizzicolli'nin 

Akdeniz'den Karadeniz'e tüm Ceneviz kolonilerini tek tek sıraladığı Ağustos 1446 tarihli mektubunda da böyle bir yer yoktur (Pizzicolli, 2003: 265-266). Cenevizlilerin 13. yüzyılın sonlarından başlamak üzere yakın bölgede ticari amaçla bulundukları yerler ise Altoluogo (Ayasuluk), Anaia (Kadıkalesi) ve Palatia (Balat, Milet) şeklindedir (Fleet, 1993: 131-136; Kahyaoğlu, 2016: 274-276) (Örneğin Anaia ilgisindeki 13. yüzyıl sonu Ceneviz ticari kayıtları için bkz. Bertolotto & Sanguineti, 1896: 514, 520, 527-530, 541).

Kuşadası, Vincent de Stochove tarafından 1631'de "eschelle Neufue" (= Yeni İskele) olarak tabir edilse de (Stochove, 1643: 229), yine Kuşadası'na yönelik "Scalanova" yer isminin tam olarak bu haliyle ilk defa ortaya çıktığı kaynak, 1631 tarihli Placidus Caloiro et Oliva portolanıdır (BnF, CPL GE C-5098 RES). Aynı kaynak tarafından hazırlanmış 1639, 1640 ve 1657 tarihli portolanlarda da günümüz Kuşadası'nın Scalanova ismiyle gösterimine devam edilmiştir (Conti, 1978: 33; Princeton, MS. 254). 

Dolayısıyla ilk ve en kapsamlı haliyle Müller-Wiener (1961; 1975) tarafından öne sürülerek bugüne değin kısmen kabul görmüş, Yılancı Burnu'nda Phygela ile günümüz Kuşadası'nda iddia konusu Scalanova Ceneviz kolonisinin 13-14. yüzyıllarda bir müddet yan yana var olduğu ve bu ikilinin portolanlarda "Figella" vb. şeklinde gösterildiği Ludolf von Sudheim dayanaklı argümanın geçerliliğinden söz etmek mümkün gözükmemektedir; çünkü birincil kaynaklara göre ne bölgenin ana yerleşimi Phygela Yılancı Burnu'ndadır ne de Scalanova Ceneviz kolonisi tarihte var olmuştur. 

Kiel (2004) tarafından Sığla Sancağı'na dair 1545 ve 1575 tarihli Osmanlı arşiv belgeleri yoluyla ortaya konduğu üzere Kuşadası 16. yüzyılda meskun değildir ve ancak 17. yüzyılın başlarında kurulmuş yeni bir yerleşimdir. Bu dönemde gerileyip metruklaşan ve deniz ticaretinden kopan Ayasuluk'a karşılık ortaya çıkmış "Yeni İskele" olup Türk kaynaklarında "Kuşadası", Batı kaynaklarında ise "Scalanova" ismine sahiptir ki 18-19. yüzyıl gezginlerinin ifadeleri de teyit etmektedir. 

Evliya Çelebi'nin 1671 tarihli aktarımı ve yine Kiel (2004) tarafından çalışılmış 1619-1622 tarihli belgelere göre, Öküz Mehmed Paşa'nın baştan aşağı imar ettirdiği Kuşadası'nda, tahkimli bir kervansaray beraberinde limanın güvenliği için inşa ettirdiği kale, Güvercinada Kalesi olmalıdır. Topçu kalesi olarak mimarlık tarihi akademik yazınına göre 15. yüzyılın sonlarından daha erkene tarihlenmesi zaten mümkün gözükmeyen bu tahkimat, Evliya Çelebi'nin 1671'deki tanıklığında da açıkça bir top tabyası fonksiyonuna sahiptir. 

1614-1616 tarihli Öküz Mehmed Paşa imarından bir müddet sonra, kendisinin yaptırdığı kervansaraya bitişecek şekilde kent surları inşa edilmiştir ki IV. Murad'ın emriyle Topal Recep Paşa tarafından, olasılıkla 1620'lerde gerçekleştirilmiştir. Güvercinada Kalesi dış surlarının 18. yüzyıl gravürlerinde bile olmaması dikkat çekicidir ve Öküz Mehmed Paşa'nın limanın güvenliği için yaptırdığı tahkimatın, adadaki top mazgallı dörtgen kule olduğunu işaret etmektedir (Şekil 26-27) [linke bknz.-SB].

Mevcut tüm mimari ve tarihi bulgular doğrultusunda tamamen bir Osmanlı Dönemi topçu kalesi görünümündeki Güvercinada Kalesi ve 17. yüzyıldan daha erkene tarihlenmesi olası gözükmeyen Kuşadası yerleşiminin kent surlarına dair, 19. yüzyıl dolaylarında başlamış ve esasen bilimsel altyapısı olmayan, dayanaksız bir "Ceneviz kalesi" yorumu söz konusudur. Dahası, Ayasuluk'un kalıntıları hala mevcut Geç Orta Çağ limanıyla ilgili bazı aktarımlar hatalı şekilde Kuşadası'na atfedilip birtakım yüzeysel hipotezle de harmanlanarak meçhul bir "Scalanova" Ceneviz kolonisi buraya yakıştırılmıştır. 

Oysa ki Avrupalıların 17. yüzyılın ortalarından itibaren, mevcut Kuşadası yerleşimi için fakat "Kuşadası" ismine karşılık kullandığı çağdaş "Scalanova" ifadesi, hiçbir Geç Orta Çağ birincil kaynağında yoktur. Cenevizlilerin Batı Anadolu'da faaliyet gösterdikleri Geç Orta Çağ dönemine tarihlenen tüm portolanlar, günümüz Kuşadası yöresinin "Chipo" adında, liman özelliği taşımayan gayrimeskun bir sahil yeri olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Bölgenin ana yerleşimi Phygela ise buranın kuzeydoğusunda, günümüz Eski İçmeler (Kuştur) Mevkii tarafındadır. 16. yüzyıl itibariyle Türklerin "Kuş Adası" olarak adlandırdığı ve o tarihlerde gayrimeskun Güvercinada, Ayasuluk'un gerilemesini takiben bir yüzyıl kadar sonra sahilde kurulacak ve Avrupalıların "Scalanova" (= Yeni İskele) diyecekleri Türk liman kentine ismini vermiştir. 

Kuşadası'na ve tahkimatlarına dair disiplinler arası çerçevede titiz bir araştırma yapılmaksızın, hatta aksi yöndeki sınırlı bilimsel yayınlar dahi dikkate alınmadan, yalnızca Özyiğit'in (2017) birincil kaynak ve mimarlık tarihi akademik yazınından yoksun yorumlarını ve genelleyici izlenimlerini esas alan UNESCO Türkiye Milli Komisyonu, Kuşadası Güvercinada Kalesi ve kent surlarını UNESCO Dünya Miras Geçici Listesi'ne Ceneviz ilgisinde aday göstermiştir ve UNESCO da bu başvuruyu kabul etmiştir (UNESCO, 2020, 14 Nisan). Hiyerarşik bir süreç neticesinde ortaya çıkmış bu durum hem akademik hem de kültürel miras marka değeri bağlamında tutarsız bir sonuca neden olmuş, 16-17. yüzyıl bağlamında ortaya çıkmış bir Türk yerleşimi ve özgün tahkimatları, ciddi bir farkla 13-15. yüzyıl bağlamında Cenevizlilere yakıştırılmıştır. 

Günümüz Türkiye sınırları içerisinde kalan tüm Ceneviz kaleleri, en geç 15. yüzyılın ortalarında Osmanlılar tarafından fethedilmiştir. Tutarsız şekilde kimi zaman Cenevizlilere atfedilen topçu kalelerine özgü mimari detaylar ise tarihte ancak bu yüzyılın sonları itibariyle tanımlı bir bağlama oturmuştur. Dolayısıyla 14. yüzyılın başlarından 15. yüzyılın ortalarına kadarki Ceneviz tahkimatlarında, dönemsel koşullar gereğince yüksek perde duvarları ve kuleler, düz cepheler, tepe mazgalları ve yarık biçimli ok delikleri yaygın iken tabya formunda basık ve geniş atış platformları, eğimli cepheli ve çokgen planlı burçlar ile açılı top mazgallarına rastlamak mimarlık tarihi bakımından makul gözükmemektedir. Bu bağlamda Kuşadası ile neredeyse aynı düzeydeki bilimsel belirsizlikler ve yüzeysel "Ceneviz" yakıştırmaları, UNESCO Dünya Miras Geçici Listesi'ndeki diğer tahkimatlardan Akçakoca Kalesi, Çandarlı Kalesi ve Çeşme Kalesi için de söz konusudur. Oysa söz konusu ilgide ele alınacak tüm savunma yapıları, metodolojik açıdan bu çalışmada ortaya konduğu üzere en başta birincil kaynaklar ve mimarlık tarihi ilgisindeki teknik araştırmalar dikkate alınarak irdelenmelidir. Bir şekilde geçmişten günümüze gelmiş farazi "Ceneviz" yakıştırmalarının etkisinde kalınmadan, temelde disiplinler arası çerçevedeki bilimsel araştırmalar yoluyla değerlendirilmelidir. Birtakım ön kabullere dayanan stilistik genellemeler ve yüzeysel kıyaslamalardan kaçınılarak her anıt tekil olarak incelenmeli; en başta da dönemsel koşullar göz önüne alınmalıdır. 

UNESCO Dünya Miras Listesi'ne kalıcı olarak girme yolunda, Kuşadası'na ve tahkimatlarına dair elzem düzeltmeler en kısa zamanda yapılmalı ve bu özgün anıtlar Osmanlı Dönemi ilgisinde değerlendirilmelidir. Öte yandan başvuru dosyasında hariç tutulmuş Enez Kalesi, Galata Surları ve Trabzon Güzelhisar gibi en başta birincil kaynaklar üzerinden tarihteki Ceneviz dönemleri açıkça ortaya konabilen savunma yapıları, söz konusu UNESCO sürecinde dikkate alınmalıdır ve ilgili başvuru dosyası da bu makalenin bulguları doğrultusunda mutlaka revize edilmelidir. Kuşadası İlçesi'ne yönelik güncel Ceneviz çalışmaları ise ticari sebeplerle burada bulundukları doğrudan Ceneviz arşiv belgeleriyle sabit olduğu üzere Anaia (Kadıkalesi) üzerine odaklanmalıdır. 

Doç.Dr. Hasan Sercan Sağlam, (Mimarlık)

UNESCO Dünya Miras Geçici Listesi Bağlamında Kuşadası Eleştirisi ve Var Olmamış Bir Ceneviz Kolonisi: Scalanova [A Kuşadası Criticism in the UNESCO World Heritage Tentative List Context and a Non-existent Genoese Colony: Scalanova]. 2022, Kent Akademisi / Urban Academy 15(2), 2022 : p. 452-480. / link

The Early 17th Century Grid Plan of Kuşadası: An Unparalleled Example? 

Kuşadası, being a coastal town of Aydın Province in the west of Turkey, has a historical city center with a  striking grid urban layout. Joseph Pitton de Tournefort was the first researcher to compare the square-planned  urban morphology of Kuşadası with European cities, in fact with a purely impressionistic assessment  (Tournefort, 1718, p. 207). Then, Müller-Wiener (1961; 1975) argued that in the second half of the 13th  century, a Genoese colony called Scalanova was founded there, as the testimonies of Ludolf von Sudheim and  Francesco Balducci Pegolotti dated around 1340 were cited as evidence. Moreover, the grid planned urban  morphology of Kuşadası was interpreted as another indicator of its foundation as an Italian colony with a  “rational plan” that is uncommon for the Ottoman cities, which have rather irregular forms (Müller-Wiener, 1961, p. 77-79; 1975, p. 414-419). 

On the other hand, Kiel (2004) questioned that the grid layout of Kuşadası cannot be a sufficient indicator  alone for a Genoese colonial presence, as there are grid plans also in Navarino (Pylos) and Banja Luka, which  were founded by the Ottomans in the 16th century. In addition, there is absolutely no settlement named  Kuşadası in the cadastral registers dated 1545 and 1575 to which the Kuşadası region was subject. 

According  to two Ottoman archival documents from 1619 and 1622, Öküz Mehmed Pasha founded Kuşadası and built a castle, city walls, fundamental public buildings and commercial establishments between 1614-1616. Kuşadası became the new administrative center of the region and replaced Ayasuluk (Selçuk) in 1676, which declined and lost its commercial character. The Europeans called Kuşadası literally “New Pier” (Scala Nova) as it  became the new regional harbor. Thus, Kuşadası is an Ottoman settlement founded in the early 1600s, which Vincent de Stochove also confirms by 1631 (Kiel, 2004: 403-415). 

In fact, testimonies about the Late Medieval Ayasuluk were erroneously attributed to Kuşadası and blended with some superficial urban hypotheses to attribute an obscure Genoese colony there. A settlement  called “Scalanova” is not found in Late Medieval written or cartographic primary sources. Moreover, all  portolans dating to the Late Middle Ages, when the Genoese were present in West Anatolia, reveal that the  locality of present Kuşadası was an uninhabited coastal region and was not a harbor for seafarers. Hence, the  grid urban layout of Kuşadası is an early 17th century Ottoman application, which is just another example like Ayvalık for the usage of grid plans in Ottoman territories, particularly in West Anatolia, even before modern  planning practices. 

Sercan Sağlam, 2022

(PhD, Associate Professor of Architecture)

"CHAPTER 9. The Grid that Remained: Redating the Coastal Urban 

Morphology of Ayvalık", by Hasan Sercan Sağlam. In "Heritage And The City : Values and Beyond, Edited by Husam R. Husain", p 125-138. (the 5th International Conference of Contemporary Affairs in Architecture and Urbanism ICCAUA2022, held online in Alanya Hamdullah Emin Pasa University in May 2022) / link

Laiklik ve Tuğrul Bey

Dede Mirasımız Laiklik - Mete Akyol

Bütün Dünya Dergisi, Aralık 2014

Seksen yıldır ayrıntılarını hiçbir kitapta okumadığım, hiçbir kişiden duymadığım tarihsel bir gerçeği, seksen yaşımın ortasında geçen ay, Başkent Üniversitesi’nde dinlediğim bir derste öğrendim. Zil sesiyle başlatılan ve zil sesiyle bitirilen bir ders süresinin bu iki sınırlı zamanı ve dört yanını dört duvarın kuşattığı bir derslik mekanı içine sığdırılmış bir ders değildi, bu. Aramızdan ayrıldığı 76 yıl önceki 10 Kasım gününün bu yıldönümünde, Atatürk’ü bir kez daha anmak için bir araya geldiğimiz Başkent Üniversitesi’nin Konferans Salonu’nda, süre sınırlarının yok sayıldığı bir anma toplantısında, sizin de yakından tanıdığınız yazarımız Cengiz Özakıncı’nın adı konferans, özü ders olan bir anlatısından öğrendim bu tarihsel gerçeği. O gün orada ondan öğrendiklerimi, bugün burada sizle paylaşıyorum:

"Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Devleti’nin kuruluşunda Atatürk’ün temel taşı yaptığı Laiklik, çoğumuzun yanlış bildiği gibi, bir ‘Fransız Devrimi ürünü’ değildir; tam tersi, tarihteki uygulanmasını görüp, önce Fransız Devrimi’nin, sonra Atatürk Devrimi’nin örnek olarak aldıkları ve yüzyıllar sonra bile başarıyla uyguladıkları, Türklere özgü bir ‘çağdaş yönetim’ biçimidir."

Tuğrul Bey

11.yy Panelden detay

Laikliğin ilk adımı olan din ve devlet işlerinin ayırımı, 1050’li yılların sonlarında, tarihteki Türk Devletleri’nden Selçuklu Devleti’nin başı Tuğrul Bey’in bulduğu ve uyguladığı çağdaş ve akılcı bir yönetim biçimdir. Bu yönetim biçimi, 250 yıllık yaşamı süresince Selçuklu Devleti’nin yönetiminde başarıyla uygulanmıştır. 

Cengiz Özakıncı bu bilgileri yalnızca iletmekle yetinmedi, belgelerle tümünün kaynaklarını da açıkladı. Örneğin, Tuğrul Bey'in 3 Şubat 1057 günü, Hilafet ile Saltanatı ayırarak, Saltanatı (dünyevi yönetimi) kendisi üstlenip, Halife'yi maaşını devletten alan bir cami imamı düzeyine indirdiğini ayrıntısıyla anlatırken, bu bilginin yer aldığı ve Fransız Devrimi’nden 41 yıl önce, 1748 yılında basılmış olan "Hunların, Türklerin tarihsel kökenleri..." (Mémoire historique sur l'origine des Huns et des Turcs...) adlı akademik kitabın yazarı Fransız Doğubilimci Joseph De Guignes’nun, Fransız Devrimi'nin düşünsel temellerini atan aydınlardan biri olduğu bilgisini de verdi. 

Kitabının, akademik özelliği nedeniyle yalnızca aydın çevreleri etkilediğini, yayımlandığında dönemin en çok okunan ve Fransızları en çok etkileyen yazarı Voltaire’ in 54 yaşında olduğunu ve Guignes'in akademik kitabından Tuğrul Bey'in "Laik Devrimi"ni anlatan bölümü alıntılayıp kendi yazılarına aktararak topluma yaydığını ve bu fikirleri doğrudan halkın bilincine işlediğini de anlattı. 

Özakıncı’nın bize aktardığı önemli bir bilgiyi daha aktaralım: Fransız Devrimi’nin bu öncü kuramcısı Guignes'nu 1700’lü yıllarda etkileyen Tuğrul Bey’in "yönetim biçimi", yüzelli yıl kadar sonra, 1800’lü yılların sonlarında da Askeri Lise öğrencisi genç Mustafa Kemal’i de etkilemiş. Şıpka Kahramanı Süleyman Hüsnü Paşa, Guignes’nun bu kitabının Türklerle ilgili bölümünü 1876 yılında Osmanlıca’ya çevirmiş ve… "Tarih-i Alem" (Dünya Tarihi) adıyla yayımlanan bu kitap, yayımlandığı 1876’dan itibaren, Askeri Lise’de ders kitabı olarak okutulmaya başlanmış. Cengiz Özakıncı, bu bilgileri de verdikten sonra ekledi:

"Şimdi göğsümüzü kabartarak söyleyebiliriz" dedi. "Mustafa Kemal, laikliğin ilk adımı olan din ve devlet ayırımını Voltaire’den öğrenmiş, Fransız’lardan almış değildir, tam tersi, laikliğe ilk adımı Voltaire de, Mustafa Kemal de aynı kaynaktan, büyük Fransız doğubilimci Guignes’dan öğrenmişlerdir ve her ikisinden farklı olarak da Mustafa Kemal laikliğe ilk adımı ayrıca, Selçuklu Devleti Hükümdarı Tuğrul Bey’in bu çağdaş uygulamasını örnek olarak alıp, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Devleti’nin yapısında temel taşı olarak kullanmıştır."

Ve acı bir tebessümle, aslında hiç de şaka olmayan bir de şaka yaptı: "Fransız Büyükelçiliği’ nin internetteki resmi sitesinde baş tacı gibi korunan ‘Laiklik, bir Fransız icadıdır’ tümcesi de, umarım bu bilgi ve belgelerden sonra değiştirilir…"

"Öğrenmenin yaşı yoktur" derler. Ben, yaşamım boyunca bilmediğim bir gerçeği geçen ay, yaşamımın 80’nci yılında öğrendim ve… şimdi hem, dünyanın en çağdaş ve insan onuruna en uygun bir devlet yönetimini "icat eden" dedelerimin insanlığa bu armağanlarıyla gurur duyuyorum… 80 yaşımda da olsa, hem de bu tarihsel gerçeğimizi öğrendiğimi gururla söyleyebilmekten de gurur duyuyorum. Dünyamızı çağdaş bir yönetim biçimine kavuşturan dedelerimizin tüm torunlarının da, bu gururumuza sahip çıkmalarını ve ortak mirasımız bu gururdan hakları olan paylarını almalarını görmek de, ayrı bir gurur nedenim olacaktır.

Cengiz Özakıncı - Atatürk Devrimlerinin Kökenleri

Atatürk’ün Ölümsüzlüğünün 76. Yıldönümü Programı (video), 10 Kasım 2014

Başkent Üniversitesi 

"Devletin müessisi Tuğrul Bey, 1055’te buraya gelerek meşruiyetini Abbasi halifesi Kaim-Biemrillah’a tasdik ettirmiş, halife de Şii Büveyhi nüfuzundan kurtularak eski itibarına kavuşmuştur. Halife Kaim-Biemrillah, Tuğrul Bey daha Bağdat’a gelmeden önce dönemin uleması ve baş kadısı olan Ebul Hasan el-Maverdi’yi 1044’te kendisine göndermişti. Bu tarihten itibaren Tuğrul Bey ile halife arasında başlayan karşılıklı güven ortamı, elçinin dönüşünde halifeye verdiği müspet rapor, ilişkileri iyice pekiştirmiştir. Sultan, kendisini siyasi işlerin sorumlusu, halifeyi de dinî işlerin sorumlusu olarak görmüştür. Kaim-Biemrillâh, Tuğrul Bey’e hükümdarlık alametlerini vererek saltanatını meşru kabul etmiştir."

Siyasi Güç ve Dini Meşruiyet Açısından Büyük Selçuklu-Abbasi Halifeliği İlişkileri

Doç. Dr. Yılmaz Karadeniz

MANAS Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 2019, cilt 8, sayı 2

Cengiz Özakıncı did not only convey this information, but also explained the sources, all of them with documents... 

On the 3rd of February 1057, Tuğrul Bey (Tughrul) took over the Sultanate (worldly rule) and reduced the Caliph to the level of a mosque, that took his salary from the state. 

41 years before the French Revolution, a French Orientalist Joseph De Guignes, which was one of the intellectuals and the author of the academic book "The historical origins of Huns, Turks ..." (Mémoire historique sur l'origine des Huns et des Turcs ...), published in 1748, laid the intellectual foundations of the French Revolution. 

His book was influenced only by intellectual circles due to his academic characteristics. Voltaire (when he was 54 years old), who was the most read and most influential writer of the era when the book of Guignes was published, Voltaire published it in his own articles by citing the section describing the "Secular Revolution" of Guignes' academic book and these ideas were directly imposed on the public.

So, secularism is not a French invention (1789), it is a Turkish invention, by Tuğrul Bey, of the Seljuk Turkish Empire, in 1057.... Just like the invention of the Gendarmerie, which was established in 1791. Even the etymology of the word Gendarmerie is Turkish :

Gendarmerie < Candar Emiri > Emir-i Candar

Orhun monuments (6th c AD) : Yargan / Yarkan; police forces

Seljuk and Memluk Turks : Candar; meaning of Can (don't read with -k- or -s-) is Life, and Candar was the title of highest civil servant. The head of these servants was called as "Emir-i Candar", which can be translated as  "Commander of Candar". He was also Sultan's gun carrier and protecter.

And French "Mare'chausse" waschanged  after 1791 into "Gendarmerie";

"gens d'armes" < Gens/Gen = Can ; (d')armes/merie = Emiri

So, Gendarmerie is also Turkish invention!...

From Turks-12th century, to the French-18th century...

SB

Tomorrow we shall proclaim the Republic... M.Kemal ATATÜRK

"The general who advances without coveting fame and retreats without fearing disgrace, Whose only thought is to protect his country and do good service for his sovereign, Is the jewel of the kingdom."

Sun Tzu

... At the late hour on the 28th October I was asked by the leading Committee of the party to be present at their meeting which was then taking place. The President was Fethi Bey. He declared that the Committee had put forward a list of the candidates and they had asked me, as President of the party, to come as they wanted to hear my opinion about it. I ran throught the list and declared that I approved of it, but also that the persons who were mentioned on it ought to be asked for their opinions. Everybody agreed to my proposal. Thus we asked, for example, Yusuf Kemal Bey, who came into question for the Foreign Ministry. He told us that he dclined to accept this office. I concluded from this fact as well as from similar occurrences that the leading committee of the party aslo was not able to put forward a final and acceptable list.

I left the members of the committee, advising them to produce a final list after further consultations with the persons who would come into questions. It was already dark. At the moment I left the building of the Assembly to return to Çankaya, I met Kemalettin Sami Pasha and Halid Pasha in the lobby waiting for me. I had read in the papers under the heading of "Farewell and Reception Ceremonies" that these Pashas had arrived at Ankara exactly on the very day of Ali Fuad Pasha's departure. I had not seen them up to the hour of this meeting in the lobby. When I learned that they had waited till a late hour to see me, I asked them through Minister of National Defense Kazım Pasha to come and dine with me. I also told Ismet Pashai, Kazım Pasha as well as Fethi Bey to accompany me to Çankaya. When I arrived at Çankaya I found Fuat Bey, Deputy of Rize, and Ruşen Eşref Bey Deputy of Afyonkarahisar, there who had also come to talk to me. I also asked them to stay to dinner. 

During the meal I declared : " Tomorrow we shall proclaim the Republic." 

The Comrades present hastened to join in my opinion. We got up. Immediately afterwards I drafted a short programme of action containing the role which I assigned to each of the Comrades. "You will shortly hear details about the application of this programme and the instructions which I gave." 

You have noticed, Gentlemen, that in order to decide on the proclamation of the Republic it was neither necessary for me to call together all my Comrades nor the debate or discuss the question with them. I did not doubt that they were naturally and in principle of the same opinion as I was with regard to the chapter.

Some persons, however, who were not at Ankara at this time and who, by the way, had nothing to say on this question, believed that they should use the fact that the Republic had been proclaimed, without previously asking them and getting their consent, as a pretext for dissatisfaction and contradiction.

The Comrades who were with me this night left early. Only Ismet Pasha was my guest at Çankaya. When we were left alone we drafted a law. The articles of the Constitutional Law of the 20th January, 1921, referring to the State Constitution, I had altered as follows: At the end of the first article I added the sentence: "The form of Government of the Turkish State is a Republic."

Article 3 was altered in the followig way: "The Turkish State is administered by the Grand National Assembly. The latter directs the individual branches of the administration into which the Government is divided through the mediation of the Mininsters."

We drafted in addition the following articles for the purpose of making Articles 8 and 9 of the Constitutional Law more clear: 

"The President of the Turkish Republic will be elected in a full sitting of the Grand National Assembly by its members and for the time of a legislative period."

"The mandate of the President lasts till the election of a new President. The President is eligible for re-election."

"The President of the Republic is the Chief of the State. In this capacity he presides over the National Assembly as well as the Council of Ministers when he believes it necessary."

"The President of the Council is elected by the Chief of the State from the members of the Assembly, after which the other Ministers will be elected by the President of the Council from among the said members."

"There upon the President of the Republic submits the list of the entire Cabinet to the Assmebly for approval. If the Assembly is not sitting the approval will be postponed till the next sitting."

The Commision and the Assmebly added to these article the article which is known to you concerning religion and language.

With your permission, Gentlemen, I shall now describe to you what happened at Ankara on Monday, the 29th October:

On this day the group of the People's Party assembled at 10 c'clock in the morning under the Presidency of Fethi Bey, President of the leading Committee. A discussion was opened with regard to the election of the Cabinet.

"The leading Committee" said the President, "has drafted a list of Ministers to present to you, which is not of a definite character. It is for you now to decide. If you will allow, the list will be read to you."

After having said that the presented a list to the Assembly at the head of which was the name of Fuat Pasha, Celal Bey (İzmir), designated as candidate for the Ministry of Economy, spoke and proposed that he be not elected by pointing out the importance of the Cabinet. above all he said the following:

"The persons whose names are quoted on this list are not more important than those who have resigned. The nation demands from us that we put them in a favourable position and carry through reforms. The new Ministers must in amy case have stronger personalities than the old ones. Let us not be in a hurry with the elections. Let us think above all of the election of the President of the Council."

Saip Bey (Kozan) expressed the opinion that Fethi Bey should be elected President of the Assembly and Ismet Pasha President of the Council.

Ekrem Bey ( Rize) "Will the Cabinet be able to fill the void which the old one has left? Might His Excellency the Pasha inform us about this?" (I had not yet arrived at the sitting.)

Zülfü Bey (Diyarbakır) declared that as this task belonged to the competency of the Superior Council of the party the election did not appertain to the leading Committee and finally demanded the concovation of this Council.

Mehmet Efendi (Bolu): "The new Cabinet that we are going to elect will not be able to remain in power for a month. These repeated elections bring the country and nation into a painful situation. Unless the Cabinet clearly explain the reasons for their resignation I shall not participate in the election of any Cabinet. We must know the reasons and can only elect afterwards."

Faik Bey (Tekirdağ): "The persons mentioned in the list do not possess greater authority than the former Ministers. The Superior Council of the party must meet to solve this question."

Vasıf Bey (Saruhan), (after having spoken of Ismet Pasha's services, continued as follows): "Why does he abandon the country and the nation? Our leaders have not informed us of the state of affairs. Why does our honourable President (referring to me) not enlighten us on this subject?"

Necati Bey (İzmir): "We cannot allow the persons who are the support of the nation to abandon us in this manner. Our honourable President must enlighten us. A Cabinet strong towards the interior as well as the exterior is an absolute necessity."

Fethi Bey (the President), believed it necessary to explain that the list was neither proceeding from me nor the Cabinet, but was eleborated by the leading Committee.

Dr.Fikret Bey (Ertuğrul): "I join in the opinion of Vasıf Bey and Necati Bey. The country is not in a very calm state, and an election made at haphazard is inadmisisble. A Cabinet must be elected which consists of personalities possessing authority."

Recep Bey (Kütahya): "Our colleagues must first finish the explanations which they have to give us, so that afterwards His Excellecy the Gazi Pasha can speak." (I had not yet arrived)

İlyas Sami Bey (Muş) : "We beg our honourable President to give us his views. It is better to avert the crisis on the day of its birth. To postpone the solution would result in accentuating the crisis still more. Let us elect a President of the Council and grant him a delay of 24 hours for the election of his colleagues. We must have a strong Cabinet in power."

Abdurrahman Şeref Bey (the late delegate of İstanbul): " Some of our comrades are alarmed although crises of this sort have occurred in all countries. The aim of all us is the welfare of the country. It is true that we are not successful in creating a mechanism which can work according to our wish. But how shall we arrive at having a strong Government? How shall we find the reason for the evil? Let us study the Constitutional Law and determine the authorities of the Government. The Assembly must declare themselves with regard to their opinions and convictions. His Excellency, our President, will on his part tell us his views, so that we can come to a solution. Everybody is fit for word and must be used accordingly. Do not let us occupy ourselves with personalities. We are united in the higher aims. Let the Pasha-President give us his opinion."

Eyüp Sabri Efendi (Konya): "We see ourselves in any case under the pressure of an election. It is striking that the former Cabinet have decided not to take over the Government again, even though they were re-elected. The High Assembly must move the destructin of this resolution."

Recep Bey (Kütahya): "I am going to speak of three essential points: firstly, of the form ; secondly, of the lack of activity; and thirdly, of the breach of our moral coherence. If the form is faulty, there is no satisfactory result. We are ignorant as to when and under what conditions the comrades of value, who are mentioned on the list, will work. The chif thing is that a person possessing authority should form a Government by indicating its members himself."

(Then Recep Bey gave long declarations especially with regard to the last point.)

Talat Bey (Ardahan): "Recep Bey and Abdurrahman Şeref Bey have well explained the situation. What is the task of the President of the Council? We have not yet adopted the authorities and responsibilities of the Ministers. We beg the Gazi-Pasha to enlighten us."

Thereupon the President put the motion for the closing of the debate to the vote. Several orther motions were read, Kemalettin Sami Pasha's being adopted.

According to the contents of this motion I was commissioned by the full sitting to solve the question in my capacity as President of the Party.

During these discussions, I was at my house at Çankaya. Following Kemalettin Sami Pasha's motion I was called to the meeting. Immediately after my entrance into the hall I ascended the speaker's tribune and made the following short proposal:

"Gentlemen", I said, "you see that opinions regarding the question of the election of the Ministers are divided. Grant me an hour's time. I will then submit to you the form of the solution which I shall have found."

Fethi Bey, the President, put mu proposal to the vote, and it was accepted.

Gentlemen, I used this hour of delay to convene in my room the persons who were in question, showed them the minutes of the draft of the law prepared in the night of the 28th to the 29th October, and came to an understanding with them.

At 1.30 in the afternoon the party held another general meeting again under the Presidency of Fethi Bey. I was the first to speak, and ascending the platform I gave the following declarations:

"Dear Friends, I believe that all our colleagues are clear as to the reasons which have led to this difficult question which you have to solve. The fault, the mistake, lies in the system, and in the adopted form. It is a fact that each one of us finds himself obliged to participate in the election of the Cabinet and the Ministers every time we undertake to form a Cabinet according to our Constitutional Law. Your High Assembly having charged me with the solution of this difficulty I have just now settled the form which I have arrived at guided by the conviction I have expressed before. I will submit it to you. If you approve of my proposal it will be possible to form a strong and solid Government. We must elucidate certain points of our Constitutional Law, which determines the form and character of our State and the integral application of which is the aim of all of us. This is my proposal."

Then I left the platform handing over the draft to one of the secretaries to read. As soon as the contents of my motion were made known the discussion about it began.

Sabit Bey (Erzincan) said: " I am supporter of the system of the Cabinet. But it is impossible to settle the present crisi through the proposition of modifying the Constitutional Law. Let us elect for the moment a President of the Cabinet. We shall later on think of this amendment."

Hazım Bey (Niğde) made the following observations: " Can we elaborate a Constitutional Law? I believe not. Even if we would be justified in doing so we could not proceed to do it within the party. Nobody ventures to speak in public meeting when a question has already been discussed in it previously. I can by no means agree that the laws concerning the vital interests of the nation will be finally settled here. The subject must be discussed freely in public meeting. Above all we must solve the crisis."

Yunus Nadi Bey answered Hazım Bey as follows: "In all countries which had for the first time to elaborate a constitutional law a constitutional assembly was formed, whilst it had not been foresseen by us the convene a constitutional assembly in such case. There have at all times been reasons for such amendments. The Grand National Assembly which preceded us has worked to this end. We have a reight to it. There is no time for hesitation on this point. We have left the trouble of solving the Ministerial crisis to His Excellency the President, and he puts before us this motion. All comrades, one after the other, have though of the system which is recommended in this motion. The question now is to formulate it. By the way, such a formulated proposal is already in existence. We must give it greater clearness and a definite character."

Vehbi Bey (Balıkesir) : "Up to the present moment we have not been informed of the Constitutional Law which it is said has been discussed here. It is true that we have read such reports in the newspapers; but is that sufficient? We must therefore first of all solve the Ministerial crisis with the reservation of discussing the proposal later on en bloc."

Halil Bey : "It is our prerogative to elaborate a new Constitutional Law and to alter the existing one. But it depends on the discussions as to whether these alterations are actually of a nature to guarantee the welfare of our country and nation. The lawyers among our friends must enlighten us on this point. As long as this question is not made clear I am not of the opinion that we can solve it at this meeting."

One of the members: "The Constitutional Law cannot be altered by a stroke of the pen."

Hamdullah Suphi (İstanbul): " Four years ago I emphasised the inconveniences of indivudual elections. I repeat the same today. With regard to the motion of the Gazi Pasha, the proposal is not new but contains rather clearer expression of a law which was adopted four years ago. Those who would like to contradict this assertion should explain their views. But time does not permit us to hesitate in long expectation."

Ragıp Bey (Kütahya): "The best laws are those which are made through events and necessities. The necessity has now arrived. We must perfect the Constitutional Law by making it clear. Let us enter immediately into a discussion about the proposal."

Seyit Bey (the deceased Minister of Justice): " The proposed form is nothing new; it only aims at giving more clearness to the law. Necessities and not theories dictate laws. The time and events are stronger than everything. The law of development is an unalterable law. The porposed form does not include any innovation. When we render the already existing form clearer and more explicit we shall surely have acted in a manner that more nearly corresponds to the interests of the country and the nation."

In reply to the observations of Seyit Bey, Abidin Bey (Samsun) proposed first to solve the crisis.

Eyüp Sabri Efendi (Konya) was of the following opinion: "We have elected His Excellency the Gazi as arbitrator. To say that we are deprived of the right to alter the Constitutional Law would be equal to admitting our illegitimacy. It is quite evident that the Assembly is competent for the alteration of this law. It is necessary that the form of our Government should be a Republic. "

Then Ismet Pasha spoke and expressed the following: " It is absolutely necessary to accept the motion of the leader of the party. Everybody knows that we are discussing the form of Government to be adopted. If we do not succeed in coming to the ned of these discussions and formulating the result, we shall perpetuate the crisis and the chaos. Allow me to tell you my experience. The European diplomats have drawn my attention to the following point: "The State has no chief" they said; "n the present form of your Government the President of the Assembly is the chief, which means that you are waiting for another". This is the point of view of Europe, but we ourselves do not see things in this light. The nation is actually mistress of her own destiny; it is soverign. Why do we hesitate to give a legal expression to the real facts? The proposal of electing a Minister of the Council without there being a President of the Republic would undoubtedly be illegal. The motion of His Excellency the Gazi must recive legal force so that the election of the President of the Council can be made legal and possibe. It is absurd to prolong this state of affairs which is causing the general weakness. The Party must act according to the requirements and the responsibilities which they have assumed towards the whole nation."

The declarations made by the unforgettable Abdurrahman Şeref Bey, following Ismet Pasha, ended with the following words:

"It is useless to enumerate all the forms of Government which exist at a moment when you say that the sovereignty belongs to the nation without reserve or restriction. With whomsoever you speak he will answer you that this signifies the Republic. That is the real name of the new creation. What does it matter if this name displeases some of you?"

Yusuf Kemal Bey who followed him on the platform gave a long explanation of the necessity of bringing the motion immediately to the vote and proposed to endow it with the legal formalities.

In spite of the objection raised by Abdullah Azmi Efendi, who said that the queston being evidently imortant the discussion must be continued, the latter was regarded as being sufficient. The motion was then read and put to the vote, at first with regard to the whole of it, and afterwards article by article.

The sitting of the party was closed and the meeting of the Assembly immediately opened. It was six o'clock in the evening. Whilst the Commission of the Constitutional Law carefully examined the motion and prepared their report, the Assembly deliberated on certain other questions.

At last Ismet Pasha, the Vice-President, who presided declared: "The Commission of the Constitutional Law urgently proposes to discuss the motion for the amendment of this law."

Shouts of approbation were heard; the report was read and put forward for discussion. Finally the law was accepted after speeches by different deputies who were greeted with shouts of "Long Live the Republic!"

Thereupon the election ofthe President was put to the vote. Ismet Pasha announced the result in the following words:

"One hundred and fifty-eight Deputies have participated in the election of the President of the Republic. By 158 votes they have unanimously elected His Excellency the Gazi Mustafa Kemal Pasha, Deputy for Ankara, President."

Gentlemen, you must have read in the protocols the declarations which I then made before the Assembly. I shall however, repeat them here to recall to your memory this historic event. They were as follows:

"Honourable Friends, following the vote of the draft of the law submitted to vour approbation by the competent commission for the purpose of making more clear certain articles of the Constitutional Law - a valuable document which actually confirms the awakening of our nation in view of extraordianry events of world-moving importance - the character of the Turkish State, which is already known and ought to be known to the whole world, shall be defined under a denomination to be universally spread. As a natural consequence of this event you entrust to me, under the title of President of the Republic, the same task which had already been imposed upon me in my capacity as President of the Assembly. 

On this occasion also you give me a new proof of the sincere affection and confidence which you have hitherto shown to me, and you manifest thereby the fact that you known to appreciate highly the services rendered by me. With the deepest sincerity of my soul I express to you my cordial thanks for this sign of your affection.

For several centruies the oppressed Naton of the Orient, the innocent Turkish Nation, was considered as being without any of the inborn qualitis which distinguish it. The capacity, the aptitude and the intelligence which our people have shown during these last years distinctly prove that those who judging rightly. Thanks to the new title of their Government our nation will better succeed in manifestinf before the eyes of the nation will better succeed in manifesting befoe the eyes of the civilised world the qualities and merits with which they are endowed. The Trukish Republic will know how to demonstrate by deeds that they are worthy of the position they occupy among the nations.

Friends, the victory which the Turkish Nation, creator of this High Assembly, has been able to gain in the course of these last four years will also in future bear multifold results. So that I may prove worthy of the confidence which I have just received, I think it necessary to emphasise one point which I regard as being very essential and which constitutes for me a great need.

This need consists in the fact of perpetuating the confidence, the kindly feeling and the support of your Assembly towards me. It is only thereby that, with the help of God, I shall succeed in fulfilling the task with which you have entrusted me as well as that which you shall entrust me with in future.

I shall work constantly and sincerelt hand in hand with my friends without for a single moment believing that I could dispense with their personal help. Supported by the love of the nation we shal march forward together. The Turkish Republic will be happy, prosperous and victorious."

The resolution containing the proclamation of the Republic had been carried in the Assembly on the evening of the 29th October 1923, at 8.30. Fifteen minutes later, that is to say, at 8.45, its President was elected. The event was brought to the knowledge of the whole country the same night and was announced after midnight everywhere by a salute of 101 guns. As is known the first Cabinet ws formed by Ismet Pasha and Fethi Bey was elected President of the Assembly.

Gentlemen, the proclamation of the Republic was enthusiastically receved by the nation. This enthusiasm was manifested everywhere by brilliant demonstrations....


Mustafa Kemal ATATÜRK
1927, SPEECH (NUTUK)

"If the country is at stake, the rest is detail."...

Hitler's Quote...

"Who" asked Hitler, "remembers the Red İndians?" is the real quote of Hitler, and not the quote which was used for the Armenians!

Cengiz Özakıncı
"Nüremberg Davasında L-3 Belge Sahteciliği" Bütündünya dergisi 07/2018 pdf:

Cengiz Özakıncı, soykırım müzesinde Hitler'e atfedilen sözün aslını ortaya koydu. Timothy Snyder'ın kitabı "Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning" ki birçok tanınmış kişinin takdirini almış.... 

Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning

by Timothy Snyder

Does Freedom of the Press Give Editors and Authors the Liberty to Manipulate Court Verdicts and Documented Facts?
Yurdagül Atun, Şükrü Server Aya, Ata Atun
İnternational Aydın University - NORTH CYPRUS

Abstract:
As a person who had wonderful connections in school, bussiness, social and even international trade in a long lifetime, I, in my last thirty years took the burden of studying the background of this "genocide" fanfare which is not supported by "any legally valid evidence or document" and hence has been standing as a contrversy disturbing our all time "amicable sentiments with several Turkish Armenian buddies". My prevailing friendly relations with reasonable Armenians are strong enough not to be infected by irresponsible publications or unproven grand-ma tales. Crime and punishment is not hereditary. Also, as mature persons it is more than half of century that we could rid ourselves from racial, national and religious differencce. Persons are born with natural national roots and beliefs hard to alter.

A prfound old time scholar and friend of mine for some twenty years frequently shared my opinions and we joyfully co-authored several essays ın historical past relations, Armenians, Turkish-German or other subjects. Having read the Wall Street Journal of Jan.25,2018 by Mr.Robert M Morgenthau, me and my scholar friend Prof.Ata Atun, (with whom we published quite a number of essays (1) available on internet) decided to present this paper as a continuation of my book "Preposterous Paradoxes of Ambassador Morgenthau" (2) plus several essays related to Armenians, genocide, Morgenthau which are enlisted hereunder! Since several of our researches are primarily focused on "The Story of Ambassador Morgenthau" book, diary, consular reports, and other irrefutable written evidences, we decided to express our cross checked "findings" (not opinions) in this research refuting the contents of the article posted by Wall Street Journal and penned by a reputed ex district attorney or "lay authority" with respected ancestry.

And yet, we are appalled and profoundly surprised by the contents of the article that appeared on Wall Street Journal on Jan.25,2018 by Mr.Robert M.Morgenthau, titled "Will Trump Tell the Thruth about the Armenian Genocide?" This article by Mr Morgenthau is plagued with so much bias and so many mistakes that we felt compelled to repudiate its contents and present our documented findings on the same issue.

Introduction:
First, the title of the article is obviously already biased and is one carefully designed to provide the reader with a false perception that the long-standing issue, known as the "Armenian Issue", constitutes an indisputable genocide. The question of whether the events of 1915 constitute genocide is already contrary to the statement of the League of Nations Secretary on March 1,1920 (3) which reads;

"...Further, in Turkey, minorities were often oppressed, and massacres carried out by irregular bands who were entirely outside the control of the central Turkish Government..."

who was authorized to make this statement as the highest officer of the "old United Nations" !

The absence of documented knowledge is no excuse! We feel that the respectable prestige of Mr.Morgenthau in Law as district attorney may be jeopardized by his blank accusations, not knowing history or ignoring legal requirements.

In the article, Mr.Morgenthau states that prior to his invasion of Poland, Hitler gave a "speech", where he ordered his Nazi subordinates to exterminate the Polish Jews by saying;

"Who after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?"

In other words, Mr.Morgenthau implies that the idea of destroying Polish Jews was designed based upon the experiences of the (so called) Armenian Genocide.

Disinformation in Holocaust Museum:
The "Hitler quote" Mr.Morgenthau used in his article to support his allegations, is in fact a popular propaganda item that is constantly perpetuated by the Armenian Diaspora for a long time. This is based on a poorly doctored docement which was submitted to the Nuremberg Court proceedings in 1946, but it was withdrawn from the files in 1948 being invalid. The documents are all clear and available on the internet. (4)

This statement appears on the wall of the Holocaust Museum in Washington, but the Museum presumably tried to rid itself from the responsibility of truth, by adding this sentence. ( August 22,1939 - ACCORDING TO REPORTS BY THE ASSOCİATED PRESS BUREAU CHİEF İN BERLİN - Louis Lochner)

Hence the Museum covered the mistake they knew much earlier by deflection or simply giving the source, without cross checking its veracity or observing the deletion of this document from the Nuremberg Court. Furthermore, one cannot help but aske the question as to why a respectable museum would sttop to put up something on a wall which themselves apparently question by referencing to a dubious source. One cannot escape to conclude that it must have been for money. And it is an open secret that in fact an Armenian by the name of Seth Moomjian (actually Set Momjian) pledged One (1) million dolars to put up that wall of disinformation.

Now, the purpose of a museum is to inform the public the true history based on factual and cross-checked information, for otherwise it would be derelict in its duties as a museum. Just as importantly, they would be besmirching the memory of the horrible Holocaust for which the museum was built in the first place. It is ironic that what the museum has done is totally contrary to the mission of today's #REMEMBER movement.

Hitler's meeting of August 22,1939:
The referred Hitler's meeting of August 22,1939 is explained in full contents in the colossal encyclopedic book on Nazi History "The Rise and fall of the Third Reich" (5) by William L.Shirer. There is no such sentence of any reference to Armenians. Furthermore, the actual meeting minutes that were jotted down and submitted to German Nazi Archives by some of Hitler's top generals did not have the same contents. Prof.Lowry's article (6) is a scholarly valid evidence and narration.

Finally "Documents - The Military Foreign Policy, and War" released by US Military (7) provides full text of the subject speech, which are identical to text of William Shirer's book. Henceforth as readers of respectable WSJ and Mr.Morgenthau, we are entitled to receive a public explanation or apology for the following serious discrepancy which must be reconfirmed.

(A) If the speech attributed to Hitler, appearing on the wall of the Museum in Washington and re-quoted by WSJ and Mr.Morgenthau is TRUE, then it must be that:

(B) The deletion of the L-3 document (15) by the Nuremberg Court plus Prof.Heath Lowry's article, plus contents of the book "The Rise and fall of the Third Reich" and lastly the records of the U.S.Military ARE ALL WRONG! WSJ and Mr.Morgenthau must be obliged to show the readers of the WSJ newspaper where and how they received their information for the article and answer the question as to WHİCH ONE of the following IS TRUE: the Nuremberg Court files and the associated references given in paragraph (B) above NEGATİNG the Hitler quote as published in the WSJ article by Robert M Morgenthau or the quote as chiseled on the wall of the HOLOCAUST MUSEUM ??

Nazi Armenian Legion and SS Armenian Troops:
In general, the shallowness of the arguments coming from the USA is aggravated further by Mr.Morgenthau's using the "religion card in favor of the Armenians" not being aware of what has been available on the internet for many years that <armenians soldiers in wehrmacht army photos> of 22.000 to 33.000 Nazi Armenian Legion soldiers in Hitler's army fighting against USA and allies, under Armenian General "Butcher Dro". 4.800 of this army were special SS troops which were functional in rounding Jews and sending them to death camps. Chapter 14/1 and 14/2 of reference (4) give descriptive and documented information about their devotion to Hitler until February 1945. Mr.Morgenthau as a profound Jew is praising the Armenians who rounded up the Jews in Europe. In contrast, it is sad (and perhaps inexcusable) that Robert M.Morgenthau seems to be unaware of many counts of Turkish diplomats (14) not only saving over ten thousand Jews and some even accompanying them for safety from Vichy France to Palestine on charted trains, not to mention thousands who were also saved on island of Rhodes.

Jews saved by Turkish Diplomats:
It is almost impossible that Mr.Morgenthau never heard of the Jewish Professor Emeritus on Middle East History, Mr.Stanford J.Shaw (18) teaching history in the UCLA Universtiy and whose house was bombed and set on fire by Armenian students in early 2000s and he took refuge to Turkey for safety. He passed away in 2006. It will be no surprise that both WSJ and Mr.Morgenthau never read an article by Mr.Shaw, detailing how the Jews with Turkish relatives in Turkey were saved by few Turkish diplomats at high risks.

Conclusions:
In regard to the population controversies, there are documented in the books and essay in footnote no.1 by Ata Atun. And of course, the bit about the "denialists" and "denial" issue, it is probably not worth to talk about it, because it simply is stupidity in its core. How can one be accused of being a "denialist" when the other side is accusing of something that never happened? How can one prove a negative? What is one supposed to do? Just take all the lies lying down?

"Denial" applies to something that is proven to exist physically or scholarly. Article IX of the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide requires "verdict of an International Court of Justice"! (10)

The UN has a special undersecretary and office "OSAPG" which specifically deal with charges of genocide by the members. The office and procedures are wide open to "evidence the human crime - genocide". The drumbeaters of genocide propaganda know that they have no case to defend and bypass the OSAPG office, by symposium, conferences, articles and so much brain washing to escape established laws and written regulations.

As far as the relief efforts Mr.Morgenthau is talking about, both WSJ and Mr.Morgenthau must read "the Near East Relief Report" (11), dated Dec.31,1921. On Page 5 of the report, under the title "general", it is stated that "...at least 1.000.000 people, chiefly Armenians and members of the other exiled subject races are living in the Near East today...".

Hence, we shall leave it up to Mr.Morgenthau to prove following the joint French-Armenian Land Distribution Committee report of March 1,1914 showing the total Armenian population in the entire Ottoman Empire being 1.288.000, how is it possible to kill 10.000 persons every day to reach 1.500.000 in 150 days while needing (where, when, how, why) stadium size graves every day, dug by 6.000 workers to dispose bodies. Was there any ever found, by the way?

Boghos Nubar, the Armenian Leader living in France, in his letter to the French Foreign Ministry of Dec.3,1919 wrote that the number of "relocated Armenians" was 600.000 to 700.000. The U.S.Near East Relief balance report indicates on page 5, that 1.403.000 Armenians were alive on 31 December 1921. Firstly, how is it possible to have 1.500.000 persons die (out of 1.288.000)? Secondly, since only 600.000 - 700.000 died during the relocation, then with a totally imaginary rate how can one arrive at a balance of 1.403.000 Armenian alive as written in the Armenian Memorandum given to the Paris Peace Conference on Feb.12,1919.

The Turkish Armenian deaths for all reasons between 1914-1922 cross checked with several documents is about 600.000. However, 200.000 of this figure died in Armenia of starvation and epidemics during their 30 months rule of Dashnakist Republic (12) and another lot of 200.000 Armenians died in fights on the side of the enemies against their home country. (13) The documentary evidence confirms the loss of Turkish Armenians during this period to be about 200.000 or 16% when deaths in Turkish army barracks were about 30%. The Armenian losses could have been much higher if the very extensive American Food Medicine and healthcare equipment and personnel had not arrived and were permitted to freely function during the years of war.

In a way, we thank Robert M.Morgenthau, the grandson of Ambassador Henry Morgenthau to the Ottoman Empire for giving us a chance to clear some of the miss and disinformation that has been propagandized for over a century now. We sincerely hope that tihs is a siren call to concerned people to set the record straight once and for all.

Dr.Yurdagül Atun, feb.2018
Researcher, İnternational Aydin University
Şükrü Server Aya (Researcher)
Prof.Dr.Ata Atun (Rector)

Two other books by Sukru Server Aya (Şükrü Server Aya) :
- The Genocide of Truth: 
- The Genocide of Truth Continues... But Facts Tell the Real Story

Genocide lie of the Armenians !


"The following article has been prepared based on the British and the United States archives. It proves categorically that the Armenian allegations were heard with great zeal by the British following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, yet all the British efforts to incriminate the Ottoman government proved only the innocence of the Turks."
MALTA:





Hatırlamalıyız ki, işgal altında olduğumuz dönemde bile delil bulamadıkları için düşürülmüş "Malta Mahkemeleri" var. 
Tarih ise Temmuz 1921'dir. Sadece bu bile "soykırımcılara" verilebilecek yegane cevaptır.
Bilal N.Şimşir - Malta Sürgünleri:
Daha 1920'lerde Ermeni meselesinde Türklerin nasıl aklandığını belgeleriyle ortaya koyuyor....