Armenia and the War

by A. P. Hacobian

The Young Turks have tried their hand at the government of the Ottoman Empire, and have failed more completely and proved infinitely more cruel and brutal than the old Turks. Besides this, their betrayal of the Entente Powers and the vast and unprecedented crime which they have committed against humanity have left only one solution possible that holds out any promise of peace, justice and normal progress in the future. That one solution is, to draw up a new map of the Ottoman Empire on the basis of nationality and historical rights, reparation in proportion to services and sacrifices during the war, and the proved aptitude of the races concerned for progress and development on the lines of Western civilization.

There has long existed in Europe a school of politicians who have always asked: "If you eliminate Turkish rule over the Turks' subject races, what will you put in its place?" After what has happened in Armenia and Syria, he would be a bold man or a prejudiced man who would deny that any change will be an improvement.

The unfitness of the Turk to govern alien, and especially Christian peoples has been proved by such an overwhelming accumulation of historical evidence and rivers of innocent Christian blood, that to urge the contrary must appear like an attempt to obscure the sun by the palm of the hand.

If this war is to bring peace and progress to Asia Minor instead of chronic anarchy, bloodshed and devastation as in the past, there must be an end of Turkish domination over alien races in any shape or form. By all means give the Turk the chance of governing himself in the provinces inhabited purely by Turks.

During the Turkish retreat from Thrace in 1913, the evidence of newspaper correspondents was that the Turk was leaving Europe in the same state—moral, material and intellectual—as he entered it four centuries ago. The fact is, that centuries of contact with civilization has made no difference to the nature of the Turk. War brings to the surface the true nature of a people as nothing else can. The Turk has proved by his conduct in this war that he is as cruel and brutal as he was when he first swooped down as the scourge of God in Asia Minor one thousand years ago. By centuries of conquest and domination he has acquired an attractive free and easy outward manner which has stamped him a "gentleman" in the eyes of European travellers. But the same "gentleman" who will charm you with his manner will murder or enslave any number of women and children without the slightest twinge of conscience. Such is the Turkish "gentleman." The Turks are to-day proving their gratitude for a hundred years of British and French support by throwing the whole of their man-power and resources—largely built up by British and French capital—into the scale on the side of Germany. They have put at the disposal of Germany and held for Germany the land routes by which alone she can hope to threaten the British and French colonial empires. They have done their best to do England and her Allies all the injury they can, and have given the enemies of England all the help they can. And still the Turk and even the Young Turk have friends and protectors in this country.[11] This, to my mind, is the most astonishing phenomenon of the whole war. It must appear strange to thinking Moslems that there should be found, in great and mighty Christian countries, respected and prominent men who defend the Young Turks at the very moment when their protégés are persecuting and massacring their weak and defenceless co-religionists in countless thousands. I gravely doubt whether such an act is calculated to enhance the prestige of Christianity in the eyes of the Moslem world.

Have the apologists of the Turks ever put themselves this question: "If under German influence the Turks have been capable of attempting the cold-blooded murder of a whole nation, how is the fact to be explained, that under the same influence they were able to gain the reputation of 'clean fighters'?"

The irony of it all is, that in a war in which more than twenty different nations are engaged, the Turk and the Turk alone among the belligerents should have gained the epithet of "clean-fighter," though, note well, from one of his adversaries only. How is this fact to be explained? Is it seriously claimed that the Turk has proved himself, under the test of war, superior in morals and chivalry to all the nations of Europe?

Turkish mentality is not understood in Western Europe. The Turk has a fanatical bravery which, however, easily degenerates into brutality. The Russians, Rumanians and Serbs have fought the Turks for centuries. It would be interesting to have their opinion of his "clean-fighting" qualities. The fact is, the Turk knows he may need English help again some day. He knows that there has long existed in England a school of politicians which has believed that British interests in the Near East will be best served by supporting the Turk. He knows that England has millions of Mohammedan subjects who have still some sympathy for him on religious grounds, and whose susceptibilities Englishmen are naturally anxious to avoid hurting. He also knows that the British soldier is a chivalrous warrior who gives full credit to his adversary for any good qualities he may seem to possess. He understands the power of public opinion in England. He sees, in short, that there is in England a fertile and responsive psychological soil ready to nurture and fructify a hundred-fold the smallest show of "clean-fighting" he may make. Accordingly, the order goes forth to the Turkish soldier to be on his best behaviour whenever and wherever he is fighting British troops, and the Turkish soldier obeys with the blind obedience which is his chief characteristic.

That is the true explanation of the amazing fact that so many—though not all—British officers and soldiers have written or spoken of the Turk as a clean-fighter. It is well-known that some wounded Australians who had the misfortune of falling into the hands of the Turks were most brutally mutilated in the early part of the Dardanelles campaign. A wounded and gallant young New Zealander told me at a Hampstead hospital that the Turks "put three bullets into him," while he was being carried to the rear of the fighting line on a stretcher. (In case my remarks concerning the clean-fighting qualities of the Turk should be misconstrued or misrepresented as in any way implying a doubt as to the evidence of British officers and soldiers, I wish to say emphatically, what hardly needs affirmation, that I regard such evidence as absolutely above doubt or question.)