New Book by Katia Peltekian

[man]

http://www.keghart.com/sites/default/files/images2/Peltekian-British.jpg

 

starting with comments:

Dear Katia, as a regular reader of your articles in Groong. I am very much impressed and amazed by your monumental decades of efforts in compiling and publishing all the news regarding the Ottoman massacres of the Armenians in the 19th and 20th centuries in the British newspapers and publications.

Your efforts are indeed commendable.

 

This is a remarkable research project. Congratulations to Katia Peltekian. I hope her findings are utilized as we commemorate, in less than two years, the centennial of the Genocide and the theft of our lands by Turkey. Please let us know how/where we can purchase the book.

 

**University lecturer, well-known journalist, and Genocide data collector par excellence Katia M. Peltekian has just published her two-volume monumental work on the coverage of the Genocide of Armenians in the British press [Volume 1: 1914-1919; Volume 2: 1920-1923]. Born and raised in Beirut, Ms. Peltekian has a BA and MA in English Literature from the American University of Beirut (AUB) and MA in Education from Dalhousie University (Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada). She taught English at AUB from 1988 to 2005, has presented several papers at international conferences and conducted numerous teacher-training workshops in Lebanon and Jordan (1990-2010). She also taught English and Business English at Haigazian University (Beirut) from 2005 to 2012. She has published numerous articles related to the Armenians. Since 1999 as a volunteer, she has been compiling on a daily basis news about Armenians and often translating from Arabic to English for the Armenian News Network Groong. Some of the links of her work appear in Armeniapedia

 

An interview (October 16, 2013) with author Katia Peltekian about her just-published monumental two-volume “The Times of the Armenian Genocide: Reports in the British Press (1914-1923)”

 

KEGHART: Did you undertake the project at your expense or did you receive financial support from Armenian or non-Armenian sources?

KATIA PELTEKIAN: I did not receive, nor did I ask for, any financial support from any Armenian or non-Armenian sources. The whole project from A to Z -- including traveling, reading, scanning, copying, typing, layout and printing were all at my expense. The one thing I did not do is the cover. It was designed by my brother, a businessman by trade.

In 2000 I published my first compilation of newspaper reports called Heralding of the Armenian Genocide: Reports in the Halifax Herald (1894-1922). I had sent proposals with samples of the book to a few Armenian organizations/institutions in North America, but for four years I did not hear from any of them. It was completely ignored. My father then decided to finance the printing. We distributed copies of the book free to Canadian MPs, libraries (both public and university) and some Armenian organizations in North America, Armenia and Lebanon.

Because of that experience, I decided to keep this one personal as well in order not to waste valuable time. After all, I am not a scholar in history, nor am I an expert in history. I am simply someone who loves reading books and newspapers.

KEGHART: Did you do your research in London, elsewhere, or through the Internet for example?

PK: After the Halifax Herald compilation was published, the reviews from friends were encouraging. It is my hobby to read newspapers in several languages; it doesn’t matter whether the newspapers are old or new. While working on the Halifax Herald compilation, I noticed that many of the sources used were from the British newspapers and news agencies, so I thought of collecting from the British press. Most Genocide scholars seem to focus on the American response to the on-going massacres, and little is done about the British reaction.

Therefore, in 2001, I began on a second journey to compile as much as I could from The Times (London), which was easily accessible in Lebanon (the library of the American University of Beirut where I used to teach) and at the Reference Library in downtown Toronto, where I spent my summers. After a while, I was advised to include other British newspapers that might fill some gaps. That is when I began traveling to London to work at the British Library’s newspaper archives in north London (at Collindale). After much research, I decided on The Manchester Guardian [currently known as simply The Guardian] because it did include additional information about the British reaction to the massacres, perhaps because Manchester had a substantial Armenian community at the time. Although I made eight trips to London for that purpose, The Guardian collection is not as inclusive as The Times’ collection.

My collection represents only a small portion of what the British Press has to offer. I am certain there are many other British newspapers with small details here and there, but that require a larger number of people working on such a huge undertaking.

Let me note here that the online index of The Times located much fewer news items than the manual work I did. I read The Times between 1875 and 1923 (minus a few years) page by page on microfilm and copied whatever I could find. Although the 1914-1923 volumes include just over 1,000 pieces, I have also collected over 2,500 items from The Times for the years 1875-1905 [i still have to read the few remaining years].KEGHART: What were the major challenges of the compilation and how long did it take you to gather the material for the two volumes?

KP: I did not expect the work to be this overwhelming. Although I started with the Hamidian massacres of the 1890s, there was constant mention of “previous” massacres and of course the reason for the 1878 Berlin Treaty. Thus, I deemed it necessary to go as far back as I could. And the further back I went the more material I found.

As this is only a hobby, actually a good distraction from teaching, I did not feel any stress of deadlines. Every summer since 2001, in Toronto, I would spend my days at the library, reading and collecting and then carrying two pieces of luggage back to Beirut filled with papers. This two-volume book, 1,035 pages combined in size A4, is the result of 12 years of work.

KEGHART: Did you use everything you discovered or was some material not used because of repetition or for other reasons? Do the books include illustrations?

KP: I used every single article I found related to the Armenian massacres, persecutions, deportations and survival. Some are very short, just a few lines, and others are quite long filling up a whole newspaper page. Sometimes I found the shorter pieces to be more interesting. There were also articles that described the war fronts in the Armenian provinces, but were not directly related to the Armenian massacres. I included these as notes together with the headline and date/page where they appeared for those interested.

As for illustrations, the newspapers at the time did not print any photographs until 1922. However, I did include the many maps of the war front as well as the ones that were used during the peace negotiations.

In addition, I located a number of advertisements asking to help the Armenian refugees, some in the classifieds section, some two-three columns long, and a couple that occupied one whole page. These were also included in the book, and printed as large posters.

KEGHART: Which publications were your major sources?

KP: As mentioned before, my sources were The Times, The Sunday Times & The Manchester Guardian.

KEGHART: In addition to newspapers, were there articles and reports in academic or specialized journals? And was there a uniform attitude toward the Turkish depredations and the events at the aftermath of the war?
KP: This is purely a newspaper collection. No academic or scholarly papers were included, nor did I try to analyze any of the events.
The book includes reports about the condition of the Armenian (and sometimes other Christian) population under Ottoman rule. It includes descriptions of the on-going massacres as witnessed by foreigners and survivors themselves; and it includes reports on the status of refugees dispersed in the region. It includes over 65 short and long debates in the House of Commons and House of Lords; these debates were about the situation in Armenia, the condition of the Armenians, the necessity to help the Armenians, and the British duty to give Armenians a homeland, free from Turkish rule. It also includes many editorials, for example, demanding the British government do the honorable thing towards the Armenians; and there are many letters to the editors of the newspapers shedding more light on the Armenians.

KEGHART: Did you find long-lost historic "nuggets"--facts and data that are important additions to our knowledge of Turkish barbarism toward Armenians and about what transpired at Sevres and Lausanne?

KP: Yes, of course. The book is filled with a lot of tidbits that perhaps experts in the field can follow up on.

Since the book spans from January 1914--just before Turkey entered the war--to 1923 at the signing of the Lausanne Treaty, it does include not only the Armenian massacres perpetrated by the Ottoman Turks, but also those perpetrated by Mustapha Kemal [aka Ataturk] and his Nationalists. I also included a few pieces that described Kemal’s treatment of the British prisoners.

However, what was more interesting is how the British interest dwindled and almost disappeared with the Lausanne negotiations, and I will leave it to the reader to discover why.

The book’s 1920 section, when the peace negotiations were going on, is the most extensive part. Most of the articles in that year and onward are related to the peace treaties and what went on between the “Allies” and Turkey.

Of course, there are also the Russian, Georgian and Tartar intrigues in Armenia after the war, as well as the Baku massacre of Armenians after the British withdrawal from the Caucasus, despite many warnings by the British Parliament.

KEGHART: Who were the major pro-Armenian British journalists and politicians of the time? Were there anti-Armenian personalities?

KP: We all know how much James Bryce fought for the Armenian cause. However, there were also the Welsh MP Aneurin Williams, The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Mayor of London, among others who advocated the Armenian cause and brought up the issue of the Armenians and Armenia at every chance they got.

The only so-called “anti-Armenian” personalities were the British Empire’s Indian Moslem citizens. Their representatives in London were very vocal in 1921-23 demanding a “just” treatment for the Caliphate in Constantinople. In fact, some of these letters sound exactly like the current Turkish government’s allegations that no massacre of Armenians took place.

KEGHART: The book includes statements made in the British Parliament. Can you give us a brief example of a ringing statement or two made there?

KP: There are many of those as the British parliament had the opportunity to question or debate the state of the Armenians, the news of the massacres and deportations, etc. The book includes over 60 items from discussions in the House of Commons and 7 long and extensive debates in the House of Lords. These are not the “official” parliament minutes, but the proceedings as reported by journalists and reporters who attended these meetings.

KEGHART: There are several books about the coverage of the same events in North American media. In fact, you compiled one about the "Halifax Herald's" coverage of Turkish/Armenian affairs from 1894-1922. Now you've produced the British counterpart. Are there similar books or books under consideration of the French, German, Russian media reports of the same events?

KP: The Halifax Herald compilation came to be because I was living and studying in Halifax, Nova Scotia. I had nothing better to do on a very cold April day, since my thesis was progressing smoothly, so one day on my way back home, I just went into the Archives Library of Halifax just out of curiosity. April 24 was approaching and in Halifax, only a handful of Armenians lived (mostly my uncle’s family and brothers, actually) and I was only curious to see if any Halifax paper had printed anything about the Armenians at the time. That resulted in the large 350-page book.

I wish there were other possible compilations. But I admit, it is not the work of one person alone. Since I did this manually page by page, it usually took me around two to three hours to skim through just one month’s issues. If each person in a group takes the responsibility to scan a year’s issues, the compilation would be finished in just a few months.

Armenian youth organizations should probably take up such projects in their own communities. I am sure many unknown little pieces of information will come to light. I was quite fascinated by a few items that The Times had translated from the German press, for example. There are also a number of items referring to Italian, French or even Dutch papers.

KEGHART: What's your next literary project?

KP: I still have more than 2,500 items that shed a more extensive light on the life of the Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire, including persecution and massacre, long before 1915-1916, or what we have specified as the Genocide period. It does give substantial evidence that the Turks and Armenians did not live side by side “peacefully” before WWI as the Turks claim. There were persecution, unjust treatment, and massacres of whole Armenian villages long before WWI. We should keep in mind that prior to WWI, the British were staunch allies of the Ottoman Turks; thus their reports cannot be described as biased. Whether I will proceed and work on this project that will result in a 3 or 4 volume book remains to be seen. I am not supported nor am I funded by anyone to be able to dedicate my full time on such a long and demanding project.

KEGHART: Are you planning a book tour?

KP: The only book presentation that I have for the time being is in London, UK, at the end of November.

http://www.keghart.com/Interview-Peltekian

=========================

P.S. While reading this article I stayed more in keghart.com

in the web its says that the original founder is an Armenian doctor-in-medicine, of old age and retired now but his site is being run by a board of editors.

In Lieu of a Mission Statement
By Dikran Abrahamian BA, MD, Ontario, Canada, 18 October 2008
http://www.keghart.com/mission

They are located in Ontario, Canada another city for diaspora Armenians. Originally the founder Dr. Abrahamian is from Lebanon and the son of the Genocide survivor.

[Yervant1]

Ontario is a province, not a city in Canada!!!!!!!

 

Keghart has done well for Armenians over the years and yet some of us were quick to attack because of an article that criticised the church.

[Arpa]

Katia is one of the most level headed, knowledgeable and multilingual contributor to Armenian fora, including Groong.. After may years of teaching English at AUB, she now teaches at Haigazian University.

BTW. The editor of Keghart, Dr. Abrahamian is a fellow AUB alumnus like Katia.

[Yervant1]

KATIA PELTEKIAN ON `THE BRITISH RESPONSE TO THE ARMENIAN MASSACRES OF 1914-1923'

Yerepouni News
Jan 25 2014

JANUARY 24, 2014


On the occasion of the publication of her encyclopedic work `The
Times of the Armenian Genocide: Reports in the British Press', author
Katia Peltekian, gave an engaging lecture on `The British Response to
the Armenian Massacres of 1914-1923', on Thursday, January 23, 2014,
at the Cultural Hour of Haigazian University.

In her welcoming address, Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences,
Dr. Arda Ekmekji, acknowledged the documentations carried out by
expatriate diplomats, namely from the United States and Great Britain,
who reported to their governments the atrocities taking place during
the genocide. Ekmekji also appreciated the painful task carried out by
Ms. Peltekian in collecting all the information related to the
Armenian Genocide in the British press, and compiling it in her new
book.

Peltekian, who has been engaged in teaching English in numerous
universities since 1987, began her lecture by stating that many
Armenian History and Genocide scholars give much attention to the
American response to the massacres perpetrated by the Turks, rather
than to the British reaction, although Britain had been politically,
socially and commercially present in the Ottoman Empire for more than
a century. In her presentation, Peltekian highlighted both the
official and public response to the massacres & deportations of the
Armenians as well as the Armenian Question during the peace
negotiations.

The first part of the lecture demonstrated a few samples of the
British parliamentary discussions and debates in the House of Lords
and the House of Commons. Although Britain was involved in the war
from the very beginning, and endured destruction and many casualties,
the official circle still found time to show its support to the
Armenian people in their dire situation. Peltekian presented some of
the proceedings of meetings in the Houses of Parliament during which
reports on the ongoing massacres were confirmed by the Foreign office,
and on a number of occasions, the British government avowed that the
Armenians would never be left under Turkish rule. But despite all
those promises, Britain at the end submitted to the Turkish demands
and abandoned Armenia.

The second part of the lecture demonstrated the British public's
reaction to the appalling situation that the Armenians lived in.
Peltekian referred to letters and announcements by a number of funds
and organizations that were established to help the Armenian
survivors, refugees and orphans, such as the Friends of Armenia, the
Canterbury Mission, the Women's Armenian Relief Fund, the Manchester
Relief Fund, and the Armenian Refugee Fund, which was established by
the Lord Mayor of London. Finally, Peltekian also demonstrated a
number of announcements placed in the newspapers calling for donations
to help the Armenian refugees and survivors.

At the end of her lecture, Peltekian answered questions by the audience.


http://www.yerepouni-news.com/archives/65193

[hagopn]

First, Congratulations to a wonderful person, Katia, for getting acknowledgment. She deserves it very much!

 

There is no doubt that the general public in the United States and Britain were very sympathetic to the Armenian plight and did much to provide relief and aid, but the "Turkish demands" portion certainly stinks of the same of Pink Elephant that wreaks havoc at every turn and page in Armenian history, and yet the Armenian refuses to see this Pink enemy. Ask yourselves that magical queston: If public opinion favored Armenians as well as a large chunk of Officialdom, why the hell, then, did "Turkish demands", the demands of a dead entity, suddenly take on "new life" and strength?

 

No one asks these questions.

[hagopn]

As for Keghart, Dr. Abrahamian is someone I respect. He was a schoolteacher for a while in Ethiopia, and I had a chance to get acquainted with him when he came over, had coffee. Nice fellow, but he upset me when they posted an "Open Letter to Charles Aznavour" about releasing the so-called political prisoners, Alexander Arzoumanian and Nikol Pashinian, two of the most unsavory characters in Armenian political history one can think of. Our relations froze after that. I lost much of the trust I had in the fellow.

Edited January 27, 2014 by hagopn

[Yervant1]

Two-volume book "The Times of the Armenian Genocide" presented in Beirut

by Karina Manukyan
Saturday, February 1, 19:53


The two-volume book "The Times of the Armenian Genocide" by Katia
Peltekian was presented in Beirut on January 31. The press service of the
Armenian Foreign Ministry reports that the book includes over 2,000
articles and reports in the British press of 1914- 1923.

Officials, foreign ambassadors to Lebanon, clergymen, and representatives
of the Armenian community in Lebanon attended the event. Katia Peltekian
presented some details of her 12-year work.

Armenian Ambassador to Lebanon Ashot Kocharyan expressed confidence that on
the threshold of the Armenian Genocide centenary coordinated measures
should be taken for international recognition of the Armenian Genocide and
restoration of historical justice.


http://www.arminfo.am/index.cfm?objectid=51E1ADC0-8B61-11E3-B8C50EB7C0D21663

[Yervant1]

Genocide Testimonials in UK Parliament 1914-1923



On August 21, 2014 Keghart.com and the Toronto chapter of the AGBU
unveiled ("kinetson") Katia Peltekian's "The Times of Armenian
Genocide: Reports in the British Press 1914-1923" at the AGBU hall.
The result of 12 years of research, the two-volumes include press
reports, Parliamentary debates, letters from readers, and petitions to
raise funds for the Armenian victims.

Ms. Peltekian was introduced by Keghart Editor Jirair Tutunjian. In a
Power-point presentation, the author screened significant excerpts
from debates at Westminster regarding the plight of the Armenians. She
also underlined that while the British government seemed to be
pro-Armenian during the war, it abandoned the Armenians soon after the
war.

In introducing Ms. Peltekian, Mr. Tutunjian pointed out that the
author researched, scanned, compiled, published the book, and financed
the vital project with her personal savings, because after her
experience with her previous book about the coverage of the Genocide
in the Canadian press (1894-1922), she did not wish to waste time
uselessly waiting for an Armenian organization or institution to show
interest.

About 70 people attended the gathering. Following her speech, Ms.
Peltekian took questions from the audience and later autographed her
remarkable 950 page, two-volume testimonial to the Genocide.

http://www.keghart.com/Peltekian-UK-Parliament

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3VQEZSuMcY#t=67

[Yervant1]

Westminster Turcophiliacs

By Jirair Tutunjian, Toronto,
20 October 2014


During the North American book launch of Katia Peltekian's "The Times
of the Armenian Genocide" in Toronto in August, many attendees were
astonished by the tremendous and almost unequivocal British support of
the Armenians during the Genocide. They were surprised because
throughout the rest of the 20th century Westminster was an ally of
Turkey and refused to recognize the Genocide.

England/Britain-Ottoman Empire/Turkey relations go back to the reign
of Queen Elizabeth I (1550-1603). England's first ambassador was
dispatched to Istanbul in 1578 to obtain the charter of the Levant
Company from the Sublime Porte. The charter granted privileges to
English merchants trading in the Ottoman Empire. Two years later the
two countries signed a treaty of commerce. The Virgin Queen also sent
to the sultan a musical clock organ and a ceremonial coach to cement
relations. It was of no consequence to the English that the sultan had
executed 19 of his brothers and half-brothers to secure the throne.

Ignoring the threat the Ottomans posed to Europe, Britain sold
ammunition, tin and lead (for the manufacturing of cannons) to the
Ottoman Empire. Queen Elizabeth even contemplated a joint military
operation with Sultan Murad III against Spain in 1585.

In the 17th century diplomatic and trade relations picked up speed and
English adventurers travelled through the Ottoman Empire; some of them
wrote about their journey ("Descriptions of the Turkish Empire" by
George Sandys, "General Historie of the Turkes" by Richard Knolles) to
familiarize English politicians, merchants and scholars with the
Ottomans. Knolles expounded that Turkish ignorance of classical
literature was a boon because it allowed them to focus on the business
of government. Many other books followed.

Although in the next two centuries relations between England/Britain
and the Ottomans remained reasonably friendly, the image of the Turk
began to slowly change from an exotic warrior to one of weak, corrupt,
and incompetent Oriental.

Nevertheless, the British helped the Ottomans when Napoleon invaded
Egypt and Palestine in the last years of the 18th century. The might
of the British Navy dissuaded the French general from continuing his
campaign north into other Ottoman occupied lands.

During the Second Turco-Egyptian War (1839-1841), when the Ottoman
armies were on the verge of collapse, the British and Austrian fleets
cut Egyptian military leader Ibrahim *****'s communications with
Egypt. The British also occupied Acre (Palestine) and Beirut to scotch
the Egyptian invasion of Asia Minor. Because of British threats, Egypt
abandoned its claims to Syria (Lebanon, today's Syria, Palestine and
Jordan) and Ibrahim ***** (son of Egypt's leader Muhammad Ali) signed
a peace treaty.

Throughout the rest of the 19th century Britain continued to nurse the
"Sick Man of Europe". The reason it did so was because of British
regarded the Ottoman Empire an obstacle to Russian expansion into the
Middle East.

During the Crimean War, in the mid-1850s, Britain joined several
European nations to defend the Ottomans against Russian encroachments.
Two decades later, at the Congress of Berlin (1878), Britain, along
with Germany, reversed the gains Russia had made during the
Russo-Turkish War.

But the ungrateful Ottomans joined Germany against Britain and its
allies during the First World War. This goes a long way to explain why
the British government sided with the Armenians when the latter were
being exterminated by the Ottomans. With the war over, London didn't
see any benefit in continuing hostilities against the Turks. 10
Downing Street betrayed the Armenians, and returned to its traditional
strategy of supporting Turkey.

In the last few months of the Second World War the Soviet Union tried
to annul the Kars Treaty and regain Kars and Ardahan. Soviet Foreign
Minister Vyacheslav Molotov told the Turkish ambassador to Moscow that
the territories should be returned to the Soviet Union in the name of
the Armenian and Georgian republics. Winston Churchill objected to
Moscow's claim while President Harry J. Truman felt that the matter
should be settled between Moscow and Ankara. However, Churchill
persuaded the newly-elected American president to force the Soviets to
drop the idea. Kars and Ardahan remained in Turkey.

British/Turkish relationship was solidified in the late '40s with
Turkey's admission to NATO. Turkey has remained in the good books of
Westminster despite Ankara's decades of dictatorships, the illegal
occupation of northern Cyprus, the atrocities against the Kurds, the
persecution of minorities, the drift to Islamic fundamentalism... and
the recent Ankara support of the Islamic terrorists in Syria/Iraq.

While many British citizens and media are supportive of Armenians,
don't expect 10 Downing Street to recognize the Genocide of Armenians
next year.


http://www.keghart.com/Tutunjian-Westminster-Turcophiliacs

[Yervant1]

British Response to Armenian Massacres of 1914-23

Part 1: Official Response
Katia Minas Peltekian, Beirut, 18 November 2014


While most contemporary scholars focus on the American, political and
public, response to the massacre of the Armenians at the hands of the
Turks in the early 20th century, the British reaction has not been
given due attention. This five-part series demonstrates Britain's
official and public interest in Armenia and the Armenians during WWI
as well as the following few years until thesigning of the Lausanne
Treaty.

Britain's response to the ongoing massacres of the early 20th century
has not got much attention and needs to be studied in more detail.
Britain was present in the region and actually interested in the
Ottoman Empire long before the United States. Britain was more
politically involved in the region because of the conflict with the
Russian Empire; and Britain was more interested in the Levant because
of the silk route trade to India and the Far East. Official United
States had shown not much interest in that region, even after the
Great War. In fact, one of the reasons the US Senate rejected the
mandate for Armenia was that America was simply not interested in
foreign lands.

This article will cover a portion of the official and un-official
British response to the on-going massacres as well as the "Armenian
Question" between 1914 and 1923. The first 4 parts will demonstrate
the interest that a number of Lords and Members of Parliament showed
during those years in and out of the House of Lords and House of
Commons. Part 5 will cover the interest the British public showed to
help the Armenian refugees and orphans. In this article, no effort
will be made to analyze these events and facts; the purpose of this
report is to exhibit to the reader what was recorded in Britain during
the period Armenians were being massacred at the hands of the Turks.

In a nutshell, the Parliament in both the House of Lords and the House
of Commons discussed or debated the Armenian issue - massacres,
refugees, repatriation, question and homeland - over 70 times during
1914-1923. It is to be noted that prior to this period, the British
Parliament had some 180 debates and discussions on Armenia during the
35 years before the Great War.

By reading the un-official proceedings of the Parliament printed in
the British newspapers of the time, one will discover that there seems
to have been an Armenian lobby in both Houses, and these members of
the Parliament, despite the heavy toll of the Great War on Britain and
the British Empire, did actually put the Armenian issue up for
discussion or questioned the British Government on information or
action it would take.

Before the Great War began, i.e. before the time we term as the
"genocide" years, the British parliament was working on implementing
the Armenian Reforms which the Young Turk Government had agreed upon
with Europe. During one such debate in July 1914, right before the
Great War broke out, Mr. Aneurin Williams, a Welsh Liberal MP, spoke
of the position in Armenia during one discussion on the Reforms that
had not yet been implemented in the Armenian provinces. He said:

"The Balkan War arose because there was a large area of European
Turkey which was misgoverned, and Turkey had not the wisdom or the
power to introduce reforms. There is a similar area and a similar
problem calling out to be dealt with in Asiatic Turkey. There is no
security for life or property in Armenia, and massacres in recent
years had been deliberately organised from Constantinople."

By August of that year, the War broke out and in November Britain
declared war on the Ottoman Empire. And although the British Empire
was heavily engaged in the War on several fronts, the Parliament still
made time to discuss the situation of the Armenian population in
Turkey. In April, 1915, before the infamous date of April 24, just a
few months after the war had broken out, MP Aneurin Williams again
raised the issue of Armenia in the House of Commons.

He asked whether the Government would endeavour, at the end of the
war, to secure for the Armenian people in Asiatic Turkey some measure
of autonomy similar to that which the Russian Government had promised
to Poland.

Mr. Neil Primrose (Minister) replied that the hon. member might rest
assured that his Majesty's Government would consider the interests of
the Armenian people in Asiatic Turkey; but it was not possible at this
juncture to determine what the future arrangement would be.

When the terrible news about the massacres and deportation of the
Armenians began to arrive to London and were confirmed by official
sources, the British Government, in common with the governments of
France and Russia made the following public declaration on May 24,
1915 :

For about the last month the Kurds and the Turkish population of
Armenia have been engaged in massacring Armenians, with the connivance
and often the help of the Ottoman authorities. Such massacres took
place about the middle of April at Erzeroum, Dertchan, Egin, Bitlis,
Sassoun, Moush, Zeitun, and in all Cilicia. The inhabitants of about
100 villages near Van were all assassinated, and in the town itself
the Armenian quarter is besieged by Kurds. At the same time the
Ottoman Government at Constantinople is raging against the inoffensive
Armenian population.

In the face of these fresh crimes, committed by Turkey, the Allied
Governments announce publicly to the Sublime Porte that they will hold
all the members of the Ottoman Government, as well as such of their
agents as are implicated, personally responsible for such massacres.

In July 1915, it was the turn of the House of Lords to discuss the
massacres during a long session; the following is an excerpt of the
discussion:

Viscount Bryce asked the Lord President of the Council whether his
Majesty's Government had any information regarding the massacres of
the Christian inhabitants which were reported to have been committed
by the Turks in the districts of Zeitun, Mush, Diarbekir, Bitlis, and
elsewhere in the region inhabited by the Armenians; and regarding a
reported wholesale deportation of the inhabitants of some districts
into Central Asia Minor and the desert parts of Mesopotamia; and
whether, if these reports were well-founded, there was in the opinion
of the Government any step that could be taken to save what remained
of the Christian population of Armenia.

The Earl of Cromer said there was, unfortunately, no doubt of the
truth of the reports...

The Marquess of Crewe [Lord President of the council] said he was
grieved to say that the information in the possession of the Foreign
Office... was in accord with what the noble lord had given.... Since [the
warning by the Governments of Britain, France & Russia] the crimes had
increased in number, and, if possible, in atrocity. Wholesale massacre
and deportation had been carried out under the guise of necessity for
evacuation of certain districts... He finally asserted that Those who
were found to be responsible, either directly for the commission of
crimes or for crimes due to their inspiration ... should receive
punishment accordingly. (Hear, hear.)

During these months, the headlines in the British Press would describe
the ongoing massacres in detail, with sources being both British &
foreign consuls as well as correspondents from the war front or in the
region where refugees were able to escape. Some of the recurring
headlines in 1915 were

Destroying a Nation: The Armenian Massacres
Wholesale Murder in Armenia: Exterminating a Race
Wiping out the Armenians
The Armenian Massacres: Exterminating a Race

And as these reports were printed in the British Press, the same line
of discussion came up again in the House of Lords in October 1915:

The Earl of Cromer rose to ask (1) Whether his Majesty's Government
had received any information confirmatory of the statements made in
the Press to the effect that renewed massacres of Armenians had taken
place on a larger scale; (2) whether the statements made that German
Consular officials had been privy to these massacres rested on any
substantial evidence; and (3) whether any further communications had
recently been addressed to the Porte in connexion with this subject...

Lord Crewe replied that the Foreign Office had received further
details from His Majesty's Consul at Batum ... who described the
appalling horrors which had taken place at Sassoun, where the
population were absolutely exterminated, only a few being able to
escape. The whole country was completely ravaged. According to the
Consul, certain number of well-known inhabitants succeeded in escaping
to the mountains, but the slaughter of those who could not escape was
universal... The Consul stated that about 160,000 of these had passed
through Igdir and Etchmiadzin. He also gave a most horrible
description of their condition, ravaged by disease, many of them
starving. They have been dying at the rate of at least 100 a day.
Nothing could be said in too high praise of the efforts which have
been made locally to cope with this hideous condition of things, but
very much larger supplies of medical comforts and of foodstuffs are
needed if the condition of the refugees is to be materially relieved...

VISCOUNT BRYCE also gave further details - Such information as has
reached me from many quarters goes to show that that which the noble
earl thought incredible, that 800,000 people had been destroyed since
May last, is unfortunately quite a possible number. Bryce confirmed
that The massacres were the result of a policy which, so far as can be
ascertained, had been absolutely premeditated for a considerable time
by the gang who were in possession of the Government of the Turkish
Empire. They hesitated to put it into practice until the moment came,
and the favourable moment seems to have come about the month of May...
Bryce then proceeded with the description of the systematic process
that the Turks followed to "clear out whole populations of towns. The
procedure was exceedingly systematic. The whole population of a town
was cleared out. Men were thrown into prison, the rest of the men, and
the women and children were marched out of the town. When they had got
some little distance, they were separated, the men being taken to
places where the soldiers dispatched them by shooting or bayoneting.
The women and children and older men were sent off under convoy of the
lower kind of soldiers to their distant destinations, which was
sometimes one of the unhealthy districts, but more frequently the
large district which extends to the east of Aleppo, in the direction
of the Euphrates. They were driven by the soldiers day after day; many
fell by the way and many died of hunger...

During those same months of horror, Lord Arthur Balfour made this declaration

In the midst of all the horrors of this war nothing, I think, is more
horrible than the treatment meted out to the wretched Armenians by the
Turkish Government who claim to represent Progress and Reform. It is a
crime which surpasses the worst deeds of their predecessors.

As the year 1915 drew to a close, and as the war raged further taking
the lives of many British soldiers, officers and citizens, a couple of
Members of Parliament still insisted on discussing the Armenian case
in November 1915:

Mr. Aneurin Williams called attention to the massacres of Armenians
and Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR (an Irish Nationalist) appealed to the
Government to do all they could to bring the agony in Armenia to an
end and to alleviate the sufferings of the survivors.

LORD ROBERT CECIL (Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs) said
the story of the Armenian massacres was a terrible one... this was not a
religious movement. It was a deliberate policy to wipe out of
existence the Armenians in Turkey... He asserted that the British would
use every resource of the Army and Navy and the Consular service to
save the Armenians, because, after all, the greatest possible
protection to the Armenians was victory in this war (hear, hear)...

----------

Note: All citations are taken from "The Times of the Armenian
Genocide: Reports in the British Press," edited by Katia Minas
Peltekian. The book in two volumes compiles over one thousand articles
from the British Press during 1914-1923.


http://www.keghart.com/Peltekian-British-Response1

[Yervant1]

BRITISH RESPONSE TO ARMENIAN MASSACRES OF 1914-'23

Katia M. Peltekian

Part 2: Part 1: Official Response

The year 1916 does not start any better for the Armenians when
headlines in the British Press report even more appalling situation:

Trail of Death in Asia Minor: Torture of Armenian Women Children as
Targets: Armenians Drowned by the Hundred Another Armenian Massacre:
Thousands of Workmen Butchered An Armenian Exodus The Sufferings of
Armenia: Organized Turkish Outrages

And at the House of Commons again, in December 1916, the reports of
the massacres were confirmed by Lord Robert Cecil, the under-secretary
for Foreign Affairs.

... In reply to Mr. A. Williams, Lord Cecil said, "The Government
has lately received information from a reliable source which gives
much detailed evidence that systematic cruelty and outrages have
been inflicted on masses of Armenians deported from their homes. The
evidence goes to show that the Turkish officials have recourse to
various methods in order to exterminate the Armenians by famine; by
deliberate exposure to infectious disease, forced marches of old men,
women and children, and lastly, by massacres of labourers on charges
of insubordination.

The Headlines in the British Press from 1917 did not change much.

Fewer articles on Armenia & Armenians were published in the newspaper,
perhaps due to the difficulties that correspondents had reaching
the war zones, but the headlines remained almost identical to the
previous years:

The Murder of a Race: How Armenians Were Exterminated 20,000 Homeless
Armenian Orphans The Armenian Tragedy: Wholesale Massacres The Armenian
Refugees: Pitiable Conditions

And although there was not much reaction in official quarters, the
British appeals for Armenian orphans and refugees grew. [This will
be elaborated in the last part]

In 1918 the British media continued to print articles and editorials
about the ongoing massacres committed against the Armenians and
Christians by the Turks. Recurring headlines depicted the following:

All Males Put to the Sword The Doom of Armenia: Will the World
Permit it?

The Armenian Horrors

In October of 1918, Lord Robert Cecil from the British Foreign Office
released a statement in which he assured that the Armenians would be
liberated from the Turks. He declared:

The services of the Armenians to the common cause have assuredly
not been forgotten, and I venture to mention four points which the
Armenians may, I think, regard as the charter of their right to
liberation at the hand of the Allies.

1. In the autumn of 1914 the Turks sent emissaries to the National
Congress of the Ottoman Armenians, then sitting at Erzerum, and
made them offers of autonomy if they would actively assist Turkey
in the war. The Armenians replied that they would do their duty,
individually, as Ottoman subjects, but that as a nation they could
not work for the cause of Turkey and her allies.

2. On account, in part, of this courageous refusal, the Ottoman
Armenians were systematically murdered by the Turkish Government
in 1915. Two-thirds of the population were exterminated by the most
cold-blooded and fiendish methods - more than 700,000 people, men,
women, and children alike.

3. From the beginning of the war, that half of the Armenian nation
which was under the sovereignty of Russia organised volunteer forces,
and under their heroic leader, Andranik, bore the brunt of some of
the heaviest fighting in the Caucasian campaigns.

4. After the breakdown of the Russian army at the end of last year
these Armenian forces took over the Caucasian front, and for five
months delayed the advance of the Turks, thus rendering an important
service to the British army in Mesopotamia. These operations in the
region of Alexandropol and Erivan were, of course, unconnected with
those at Baku.

I may add that Armenian soldiers are still fighting in the ranks of
the Allied forces in Syria. They are to be found serving alike in the
British, French, and American armies, and they have borne their part
in General Allenby's great victory in Palestine. He concluded saying:
"Need I say after this that the policy of the Allies towards Armenia
remains unaltered? ... I am quite ready to reaffirm our determination
that wrongs such as Armenia has suffered shall be brought to an end,
and their recurrence made impossible."

At the end of October 1918, however, the British press published
concerns regarding some reports emerging in both Paris & London that
there was an intention to conclude an arrangement with the Turks
on the basis of leaving them in possession of Armenia, and even of
acknowledging Turkish authority in the regions from which Turkey
had been expelled. The British media called this "betrayal", and as
one The Guardian correspondent wrote, "It may seem incredible that we
should be guilty of this wicked abandonment of the Eastern Christians,
of whom the Turks have massacred three-quarters of a million, but the
War Office Turcophiles are strong, and it is unfortunately impossible
to treat these reports as being wholly beyond belief."

Lord Cecil, from the Foreign office, denied these rumors, as did the
Secretary for Foreign Affairs Lord Balfour, who declared,

We have always regarded the freeing of the Armenians from Turkish
misrule as an important part of our Middle Eastern policy, and we
confidently look forward to its accomplishments. (Cheers.)

With the end of the Great War came the need to help Armenia (the
nation), the survivors, the refugees and what the British press called
"the Armenian Remnant". At a November 1918 meeting in the House of
Commons dedicated to the Armenians situation,

Mr. Aneurin Williams called attention to the condition of the races
that had hitherto been subject to Turkish misrule, and in particular
of the Armenians. He said that since the beginning of the war 800,000
Armenian men, women, and children had been massacred. There were
large numbers of refugees and deportees in concentration camps in
the north of Syria and the higher parts of the Euphrates. He asked
what was going to be done to save them from famine and death... He
urged the Government to organize measures for saving the people from
starvation and to promise that steps would be taken later to enable
those who had been compelled to leave their country to return safely
to the land of their forefathers.

Another Member of Parliament Mr. J. Bliss, described many of the
tortures which the Armenians had been subjected to, the confiscations,
personal outrages, deportations, and murders of which they had been
victims.

Moreover, MP Sir G. Greenwood urged that it should be a main principle
of the British foreign policy that ... Turkish rule in Armenia must
be forever gone, and the Armenian State placed under the protection
of the Great Powers, with one Power as mandatory of all the Powers,
at least for a term of years.

After a number of members of parliament also made similar statements,
the Government's reply came from Lord Robert Cecil, the Under-Secretary
for Foreign Affairs:

... I was asked what measures have been completed or were about to
be taken for the immediate protection of the Armenian people, apart
from its future government. ... In the first place, provision has
been made for the repatriation of the Armenians at present imprisoned
or interned by the Turks, and in that matter the Armenians have been
singled out from all the other races, and have been put upon the same
terms as our own prisoners of war.

Lord Cecil also shared to the full the view that the enemy in this
matter was the Turkish Government. He believed it to be true that every
one of the atrocities in Armenia had not been the result of casual
ferocity of isolated Turkish brigands, or even of the misdeeds of
local governments; they had been ordered from Constantinople, so far
as he knew, in every case. That was the central fact to be recognized
in dealing with the situation. It was not a religious question. The
Arabs had always protected the Armenians, and when the British Army
came to Aleppo they found several bodies of Armenians living there
under the protection of the Arabs.

And despite several warnings from Britain and the Allies - the victors
in the War - who constantly reminded the Turks - the losers in the
War - of the clauses of the armistice to the Turks, the Turks went
about with their business as usual. Headlines in the British Press
in 1919 again drew the British public's attention to massacres and
outrages committed against the Armenians and other Christians.

Turkish Massacres of Armenians: Violation of the Armistice Tortured
Armenians: Turkish Atrocities Continued Turks Harassing Christians:
Smyrna District Terrorized Slaughter of Armenians Armenian Massacre:
Hundreds of Women & Children Killed (in Karabakh by Azerbaijani forces)
Armenians in Peril

As the massacres continued, the British Government's Press Bureau
released yet another statement saying:

Evidence has been received that the Turkish army, in withdrawing from
the invaded territories in the Caucasus, has continued, in spite of
the terms of the armistice, to commit the grossest outrages on the
Armenian population; in fact, individual Turks have openly acknowledged
that the intention is to deal a final blow at the Armenians and to
consummate the Turkish policy of exterminating the unfortunate race.

During the Summer of 1919, alarming reports sent by agents of the
Allied governments in Armenia alerted the Peace Conference delegates
that the withdrawal of the British troops from TransCaucasia would
be the signal for a terrible outbreak of massacres and violence, of
which the Armenians would again be the victim; however, the British
government was adamant to start withdrawing on June 15. That withdrawal
was postponed for two whole months to give other governments interested
in the welfare of Armenia to step in and take charge. This resulted
in a few Parliamentary discussions during which friends of Armenia
MPs Aneurin Williams, T.P. O'Connor and Lord Cecil questioned the
Government about the measures it would take to ensure the safety of
Armenians and prevent new massacres from taking place.

The only answer given was that measures were being discussed at the
Peace Conference.

But despite many pleas in and out of the official circles regarding
the terrible consequences that could occur in Armenia, Britain began
to gradually withdraw its army as the British press headlines read
"Armenia Abandoned". Lord Robert Cecil (Undersecretary of Foreign
Affairs) had this to say during one debate in August 1919 in the
House of Commons.

With regard to Armenia, we would much like to avoid the risk of
possible atrocities, but we had great responsibilities all over the
world, and our first responsibility was to our own people. There was
a very definite limit to what the country could do. The Government
would gladly do everything in their power to avoid misfortune in
Armenia, and there was reason to hope, from the representations which
had been made to the Government by a commission sent to Armenia,
that the atrocities would not take place again. The withdrawal of
the troops must continue. The process of withdrawal would be slow;
it would continue well into October. If any sign of help were coming
from America we should only too gladly welcome it. This was really an
American problem rather than British. They were in a better position
to deal with it. They had interests as great as ours. If the President
of the United States were officially to say to us: "We wish you to
hold the fort a little until we can make arrangements," we should
not only do our best, but we could hold out no hope of keeping troops
longer in that part of the country. We had our own missions both at
Baku and Batum.

British Response to Armenian Massacres of 1914-'23

Part 3: Part 1: Official Response

With the arrival of 1920 came more massacres of Armenians, this
time at the hands of Mustapha Kemal ***** (later known as Ataturk)
and his Nationalist troops. The British Press's headlines sounded
like history repeating itself:

Fresh Armenian Massacres: 1,500 victims of the Turk

Slaughter of the Armenians: 7,000 Victims of the Turk

Armenian Call to the Allies: Massacred and Helpless

These reports did not go unnoticed in the official circles, and as
the Peace Conference continued to discuss the future of Turkey and
whether Constantinople would be given back to Turkey, members of
the Parliament Aneurin Williams and T.P. O'Connor again came to the
defense of the Armenians with the following discussion.

Mr. A. Williams asked [the Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs] whether
he had received news of the massacre of about 1,500 Armenians by
Nationalist bands near Marash at the end of January, ... and whether
he was aware that Europeans of Constantinople and Asia Minor... were
calling out for protection against those continued outrages.

Sir Hamar Greenwood said: - The answer to [your] question is, I
regret to say, that similar information has been received from a
private source by his Majesty's High Commissioner at Constantinople...

Mr. T. P. O'Connor - May I ask whether these massacres will not confirm
the Government in their frequently announced policy that none of the
Christian subjects of Turkey, like the Armenians, shall any longer,
under the new arrangements with Turkey, be subjected to the possibility
of massacre, as in the past.

SIR H. Greenwood - I wish it were possible for me to give an answer
to the question satisfactorily both to the hon. member and to myself.

Mr. A. Williams - Is it not a fact that the Armenians went back to
these districts under the encouragement of the British authorities?

SIR H. Greenwood - I must have notice of that question.

Debates in the House of Commons took place frequently during the first
months of 1920, but the interest of the British Government seemed to
diminish. Whenever similar questions were raised by members of the
Parliament, the government either chose not to answer or completely
avoided the issue saying that those territories were not under British
responsibility but rather under the French jurisdiction. However,
the British newspapers did not remain silent. In several editorials,
the Government was called upon to do the honorable duty towards the
Armenians. The Editor of The Times (February 18, 1920) described the
situation well.

While the Supreme Council in London is preparing to deal indulgently
with the Turkish Government, large forces of Turks and Kurds have begun
a wholesale massacre of the remnants of the Armenian people in the
province of Cilicia, in Asia Minor. These forces are under the control
of the recalcitrant general, Mustapha Kemal *****, who is the head
of the "Nationalist" movement in Anatolia... Mustapha Kemal appears
to have adopted the policy of Enver and Talaat, who sought to "kill
the Armenian question by "killing the Armenian nation."... Over fifty
per cent. of the two million Armenians in Asia Minor are believed to
have been exterminated as a consequence of the terrible "deportations"
of 1915. The victims who have already been butchered in the last week
or two by Mustapha Kemal 's men are said to number seven thousand. At
Zeitun (the Armenian town which always maintained semi-independence
until five years ago), at Furnus, and at other places the Armenians
were not able to offer any effective resistance. At Hajin, a lonely
town set in the midst of high mountains, the Armenian inhabitants and
a party of Frenchmen were, by last report, holding out... The Editorial
continued describing the dire situation of the Armenians in Cilicia.

Another editorial in The Times warned that

The one thing the public will not tolerate is the abandonment of the
Armenians to destruction. Mr.Lloyd George told the Armenian citizens
of Manchester in 1918 that "those responsible for the government
of this country are not unmindful of their responsibilities to your
martyred race." The time has come to recall these responsibilities...

During subsequent meetings at the House of Lords and the House of
Commons, news of fresh new massacres were confirmed by members of
the Government, while the Prime Minister Lord Andrew Bonar Law and
his cabinet confirmed that they were doing all that could be done.

... In regard to the carrying out of the pledges given to the Armenian
and Christian peoples of the Turkish Empire, Sir Bonar Law said: -
I do not think that it is necessary to assure my hon. friends and the
House that the protection of the races referred to in the questions
is one of the most vital subjects to be decided in the Turkish Treaty,
and the steps necessary to secure that protection are being considered
at the Conference.

It is during this time that two opposing groups emerged in the British
Parliament: One side included Lord Robert Cecil, T.P. O'Connor,
Aneurin Williams, and others who signed a declaration to the Prime
Minister that it was essential in the interests of the permanent peace
that Constantinople not be left to the Turks. Whereas a counter-move
was made by 23 members of the House who circulated a letter to their
colleagues at Westminster saying that they disagreed that the Turk
should be thrown out of Constantinople because the British Empire
had pledged its Indian citizens in 1918 that the British Empire was

"... not fighting to deprive Turkey of its capital or of the rich and
renowned lands of Asia Minor ... which are predominantly Turkish in
race. We believe that any departure from this undertaking would have
disastrous effects on Moslem opinion in India.

At this point, matters took a different turn. The Indian Moslems
of the British Empire showed their displeasure with the British
officials at the Peace Conference who were negotiating the peace
terms with Turkey as the topic of Constantinople hit the headlines:
should Turkey stay out of Europe? In fact, in the Parliament, the
debate on Constantinople took precedence over the rights of the
minorities in Turkey. Indian Moslems were also disgruntled at the
direction the debates were going: after all, the Moslem Caliphate was
in Constantinople. Frequently, letters to the editor from the Indian
Moslem community leaders, such as Ameer Ali, began to appear on the
pages of The Times. These letters openly attacked Lords and MPs,
such as Bryce and Williams, who wanted Turkey out of Europe and out
of the Armenian provinces. Indian Moslem leaders claimed that the "
the hundreds of millions of Moslems in the British Empire helped the
Allies in the war because of the Prime Minister's declaration in 1918
that the aim was not to deprive Turkey of its capital or of the rich
and renowned lands of Asia Minor and Thrace, which are predominantly
Turkish in race." They even blamed Europe and Tsarist Russia for the
misrule of Constantinople. Their discord and underlying threat to
World Peace was even more evident with such claims in a Letter to
the Editor of The Times in February 1920:

To drive the Turks out of Europe, and pen them in, within the
plateau of Anatolia would mean that they would be excluded from free
inter-association with other nations; would be deprived of all touch
with the modern world, and thus have no chance of development. They
would brood in sullen anger over their wrongs and wait for the hour
of revenge... The Indian Moslem leaders in Britain even avowed that
Turkey [was] a victim of injustice. They hoped that Britain would
not allow the cherished feelings of their Moslem fellow-subjects to
be trampled upon and a gulf of bitterness and hatred created between
the two great faiths within the British Empire.

After this sort of language emerged from the Moslem Indians of the
British Empire, both Houses of the Parliament had long discussions
and debates on Constantinople and Indian Moslem sentiments, but some
officials remained firm in honoring other pledges such as those given
to the Armenians.

Towards the end of February 1920, the British Labor Party protested
against the treatment of Armenia by the Allied Powers: They issued a
lengthy resolution regarding the minimum programme which the Allied
Governments are bound in honour to carry out, and which included: -

The entire region known as Turkish Armenia must be released absolutely
from Turkish sovereignty.

The best settlement would have been to place the whole of this
region for a term of years and under strict conditions under the
control of a single mandatory Power, charged to maintain religious
and racial equality between the different elements of the population,
to promote goodwill between them, and to train them to govern their
country in common. But the party recognise that if America stands
aside the country may have at least temporarily to be divided. But
if a mandate for the south-western districts (Cilicia, Diarbekr,
Kharput) is given to France, they demand that it shall be conferred
under the strict conditions referred to above, and that at a date
to be specified in the mandate the population shall be given an
opportunity of deciding whether they wish to govern themselves as a
separate State or to reunite with the rest of Armenia.

The remainder of Turkish Armenia ought to be attached at once to the
independent Armenian Republic, already in being in Trans-Caucasia.

The party protests against any idea of subordinating the Armenian
settlement to considerations of Indian policy.

The British Press did not back down either: Headlines in 1920 now
referred to

The Scandal of Armenian Martyrdom

The Massacre of Armenians: Deportation Horrors Repeated

The Marash Massacres: 16,000 Armenians Killed out of 22,000

Cilician Massacres: Nationalist Orgies

The Press also showed discontent at the Supreme Council's (at the
Peace Negotiations) silence over the measures it would take to stop
the massacres; in fact, Editorials demanded answers when they printed:

Armenia happens to be the subject upon which millions who care
little for foreign affairs of the usual sort are now particularly
interested...

The question to these millions is not one of territorial or financial
gains to this country or to that. It is a question of human life. It
is a question of saving the remnant after massacres of the Armenian
people, from the wholesale slaughter which is now being prepared
for them.

However, whenever some MPs brought up the issue of these renewed
slaughters, the Government chose to remain silent: At one House of
Commons meeting in March of 1920:

SIR D. MacLean and Major D. Davies asked for information with regard
to the massacres of Armenians by the Turks, and the action it was
proposed to take.

Mr. Lloyd George (PM) - These matters are under discussion by the
Allied Governments and between the Government and their representatives
in Constantinople, and I hope my hon. friend will recognize the
inadvisability of making an announcement on the subject at present...

The deterioration of morals of the British Government came at another
House of Commons meeting during which the protection of Armenia was the
topic of discussion on the number of Armenians massacred: (March 1920)

Mr. T. P. O'Connor asked the Prime Minister whether he had seen the
most recent telegram from Cilicia giving full details of the massacre
of Armenians there. He had seen a telegram stating that 18,000 had
been massacred in the district of Marash, that 1,300 women and children
had perished in a snowstorm, and that there were still 8,000 Armenians
in daily peril.

Mr. Lloyd George replied: Such information as we have received does
not, I am glad to say, indicate that the massacres have quite reached
that formidable figure; but they are formidable enough. The latest
figure we have comes to something like 15,000. Beyond that I do not
think we have heard anything.

Mr. T. P. O'Connor asked whether details had been received as to the
death of refugee women and children from snow and starvation.

Mr. Lloyd George - I think they would be included in the 15,000. No
doubt many of them attempted to escape and perished in a snowstorm.

For one reason or another, the British government began putting all
sorts of obstacles not to grant Armenia what it had promised. One such
reason was whether the Armenians constituted a majority or a minority
in the regions that were to be given to Armenia & Cilicia. During a
long debate on Foreign Policy in the House of Commons, the following
statement was made by the Prime Minister Mr. Lloyd George:

The difficulty about Armenia is that the Armenian population is
scattered over several provinces. There is only one part of Turkey
where you can say that the Armenians are in the majority. By no sort of
self-determination can you add to the Republic of Armenia territories
like Cilicia. In Cilicia they are in a very considerable minority. I
rather think that the [Moslems] there are in the proportion of three or
four to one, ... Here are the figures: - Moslems, 546,000; Armenians,
130,000; Greeks, 36,000; other elements 18,000...

Of course, this issue of numbers was not dismissed that easily by
Aneurin Williams when he asked whether the Prime Minister was speaking
of the population of Cilicia as it was now or as it was before the
massacres. Was he recognizing the majority created by the massacres?

To which Lloyd George answered: We must take the facts as they are.

I have no doubt that the horrible massacres have upset the balance
of the population.

When T.P. O'Connor demanded that it was Britain's greatest
responsibility to prevent further massacres, the Prime Minister had
only this to say:

I agree that we have a certain responsibility in the matter, but we
really cannot police the whole world. With every desire to assist,
we have used the British Fleet very freely. We practically policed
that country for a year or two, and policed it successfully, but it
cost a very considerable sum of money, and we cannot undertake that
liability indefinitely. (Hear, hear.)... With regard to the Republic
of Erivan... it depends entirely on the Armenians themselves whether
they protect their independence. They must do so; they must begin
to depend upon themselves. They are an exceptionally intelligent
people. In fact it is their intelligence which gets them into
trouble sometimes, from all I hear... The Prime Minister even had
the audacity to declare that Instead of always casting themselves
upon other countries and sending supplications and appeals, let the
[Armenians] defend themselves. When they do so the Turk will have too
much respect for them to attempt any more massacres in that quarter.

Note: All citations are taken from "The Times of the Armenian Genocide:
Reports in the British Press," edited by Katia Minas Peltekian. The
book in two volumes compiles over one thousand articles from the
British Press during 1914-1923.

http://www.keghart.com/Peltekian-British-Response2-3