by Benny Morris
war time persecutions. It had the same end in mind—to cleanse Asia Minor
of Armenians. It seems to have sprung up spontaneously in diff er ent locations
within weeks of the signing of the armistice and, at least initially, lacked cen-
tral organ ization. It was especially pronounced in sites to which deportees
were returning.
Western missionaries and Armenians referred to the anti- Armenian cam-
paign of early 1919 as a “white massacre.” The goal was to impoverish and
dishearten the survivors of the war time genocide by boycotting their busi-
nesses in the towns and preventing them from farming in the countryside.
According to the Armenian Patriarchate, the Kemalists were also robbing
Turks and Armenians, 1919–1924
Armenians and conscripting them for “heavy labor.” But they were not
massacring: “this is the only favor they grant them.”248 In October 1919, the
Armenian and Greek patriarchs quoted Kemal as asking, “Why massacre
when it was so easy to eliminate by steady merciless pressure?”249
To be sure, Kemal also understood the utility of straightforward, old-
fashioned massacre, at least to complement the white variety. Massacre
would trigger immediate mass flight and could bring strategic benefits. Ac-
cording to an intercepted letter, Kemal ordered Şakır Nimet— a Nationalist
agent in Aleppo and former staff officer of Enver’s—to “or ga nize massacres
of Christians in Aleppo, Homs, Damascus and Beirut.” The aim was not just
to kill Christians but also to persuade the French to shift troops from Cilicia,
Kemal’s immediate objective, to Syria.250
The start of the Nationalist guerrilla campaign in Cilicia and northern
Aleppo vilayet in January– February 1920 was accompanied by large- scale
massacres. The Turks claimed that their assault on the French- occupied areas
was in part a reaction to Armenian and French depredations against Muslims.
The charge was largely a Nationalist invention, though it is probable that many
Turks believed it. Armenians were enraged by their suffering, and Turks ex-
pected them to take revenge. As the Armenian archbishop of Bursa told a
French officer, he “would like to see as many Turks killed by Armenians as
he had seen Armenians killed by Turks during the war.” (The Frenchman re-
torted: “I don’t think that sentiment is very Christian.”)251
This thinking, however prevalent, rarely inspired action. Armenians were
almost everywhere a minority— demoralized, mostly unarmed, and restrained
by Allied supervision. Moreover, as the Allies’ promises of Armenian in de-
pen dence evaporated and their forces came under guerrilla attack, many Ar-
menians came to understand that the future of those remaining in the country
was under Turkish rule. It was therefore best to keep a low and subservient
profile. Perhaps Christian values also acted as a brake.
But some atrocities did occur. In summer 1920, Armenians raided and
looted Turkish homes in Adana and several villages, precipitating flight.
According to French reports, the assailants were bent on torpedoing a
Franco- Nationalist agreement. The worst of this vio lence occurred in Adana
itself, on July 10, when police opened fire, killing fifteen Turks. The person
responsible, allegedly, was an Armenian police officer, Lieutenant Azzadian,
Mustafa Kemal and the Nationalists
Massacred Armenians. The Turks claimed that mass killing was a reaction to Armenian and French murder of Turks.
“who seeks an opportunity to kill the Turks and pillage their houses.”252 Re-
porting the same incident, Bristol wrote of “about fifty Mohammedans”
“murdered.”253 The Armenians denied Bristol’s report.254
But, en fin, while the Turks complained incessantly, Western observers—
diplomats, officers, and missionaries— recorded very few Armenian atrocities
during 1918–1923. Many detailed Turkish complaints referred to minor
Christian misdeeds when compared to ongoing Turkish atrocities (not to
mention their crimes during 1914–1918). For example a list of Turkish
complaints from Cilicia and Adana between December 29, 1918, and Feb-
ruary 15, 1919, speaks of four Muslim merchants killed in a robbery, one
woman raped, and the repeated theft of money and jewelry from Muslims.255
In early 1919 the Turks alleged that Armenians had murdered a handful of
villa gers at Azairlou, near Dörtyol.256 The Turks widely disseminated such sto-
ries in newspapers, triggering Muslim anger— and anti- Christian atrocities.257
The most horrific Turkish allegations came during the war, in the Caucasus
(where, of course, Armenians regularly alleged Muslim atrocities). Russian-
Armenian soldiers reportedly committed massacres in the Rowanduz and Neri
districts in spring– summer 1916.258 In February 1918 the Turks alleged that
Turks and Armenians, 1919–1924
Armenians had massacred Muslims in the Caucasus and Russian- occupied
eastern Turkey. Historian Arnold Toynbee, then in the British Foreign Office
Information Department’s Intelligence Bureau, ruled that the allegations were
“for the greater part . . . no doubt misrepre sen ta tions.” But he conceded that
“the turn of the wheel” of fortune, with the Armenians on top, “may be ac-
companied by certain acts of vio lence or injustice.”259 In July 1918 British dip-
lomats in Moscow reported a massacre of 800 Muslims, including women
and children, in Erzincan before the Rus sian evacuation of the town.260 A
British officer reported that in the area near Lake Balık, where Rus sian Ar-
menian and Muslim Kurdish units were at loggerheads, the “entire Moslem
population is seeking refuge from Armenian robbery and vio lence.”261 Arme-
nian troops also appear to have massacred Tatar villa gers.262 Armenian
spokesmen routinely denied such allegations.263
In January 1919 Muslims from Yerevan and surrounding villages com-
plained of Armenian depredations after the Turkish withdrawal. At Kerni
Yassar, they charged, Armenians arrested and killed “the rich and educated,”
then killed other inhabitants and looted homes. Elsewhere in the area, Arme-
nians allegedly separated men from women and massacred the men. Then
“the Armenians carried away with them all the girls and women.”264 A Turkish
official claimed that Armenian regulars massacred the inhabitants of Vedi
and Sadank, southeast of Yerevan, and that in other areas they killed some
20,000 people, burning women and children.265 Turks alleged that in six vil-
lages near Sarıkamış, the whole population was “burnt alive.”266 A report
from the Ankara government even spoke of an “extermination policy” in
Kars, with 800 murdered and 900 deported. Altogether the Nationalist re-
port charged that 135,000 Turks were massacred or driven out of 199 vil-
lages by the end of 1919.267 Almost none of these allegations were con-
firmed by Western observers, and the stories clearly aped Armenian charges
against Turks— which, by contrast, were routinely confirmed by outsiders.
There were more reports of massacres in summer 1921, committed by Ar-
menian brigands in western Anatolia as Greek forces retr
eated from the Izmit
area. Bristol wrote of “several hundred Turks” killed, apparently basing him-
self on a report by an American missionary who had heard from British offi-
cials that Armenians had “murdered 200” Turks in Izmit town on June 25.268
Rosalind Toynbee, a prolific author and Arnold Toynbee’s wife, wrote of
Mustafa Kemal and the Nationalists
meeting a little Turkish girl whose lower jaw had been blown off. The girl
somehow related that an Armenian band had pillaged her village, driven
the inhabitants into a house, and thrown bombs inside. Her mother died
in the house, along with nineteen others. Another ten villa gers were killed in the street, she said.269
Without doubt, there were Armenian depredations in the eastern vilayets
and in the Caucasus, where mutual massacre was a norm in the war time and
postwar ethnic clashes. But in central, western, and southern Anatolia, in-
cluding Cilicia, Armenian criminality was normally limited to theft, including
robbery. Murders were rare, and multiple murder was almost unheard of. The
July 1920 massacre in Adana and the summer 1921 Izmit- area massacres
seem to have been the only ones of their kind. The only Western diplomat
who accepted Turkish allegations at face value, and always highlighted
them, was Bristol.270 In general Western observers— diplomats, officers, and
missionaries—recorded very few atrocities committed by Armenians during
1918–1923. Even the Turks, though they provided many detailed com-
plaints, produced a cata log of only minor misdeeds when compared to their
ongoing crimes.
Maraş
The French takeover in Cilicia and northern Aleppo vilayet “stirred up al-
most as much feeling as the Greek entrance into the Smyrna district,” Bristol
wrote.271 Within weeks, the French garrisons were effectively under siege.
Turks severed roads and rail lines and assailed relief columns and the garri-
sons themselves. Maraş was the first major flashpoint.
Maraş was in difficult straits before the French arrived, at least from the
perspective of the Armenians. In late December 1918 Sykes visited and dis-
covered “one of Turkey’s most charming spots, a city of trees and running
water” surrounded on all sides by the foothills of the Taurus Mountains.272
But the roughly 6,000 Armenians who had returned— from a prewar popula-
tion of 20,000— found their homes “demolished, their shops ruined and
their churches used as latrines.” He noted, “The children are naked in the
streets and the Turks still threaten [them].” Thousands more Armenians re-
settled there during the following months.273
Turks and Armenians, 1919–1924
The British oversaw law and order with a small garrison but left day- to- day
governance to the Turkish administration. Incidents between Turks and
Britons and Turks and Armenians were rare, the Turks cowed by the British
military presence. The British withdrawal and the arrival of the French in No-
vember 1919 appear to have passed smoothly. On the face of it, Turkish-
Armenian relations appeared tranquil.
But tensions rose during December 1919– January 1920. It is unclear
whether the Nationalists deliberately selected Maraş— the isolated, north-
ernmost French garrison—as the first site of their campaign against the
occupation, or whether Nationalist vio lence there was precipitated by local
incidents. A leading American missionary seemed to think Maraş was hand-
picked, later writing that the Turks “appear to have been moving in this
direction for some time prior to the beginning of hostilities. It looks as
[though] there was a deliberate intention to make an attack [on Maraş] and
as if preparations had been made for it.”274 Indeed, there were standing
orders to this effect, albeit not only regarding Maraş. On October 26, 1919,
Kemal instructed his army corps commanders “to fight against the French
occupation of Marash, Aintab and Urfa.”275
A chain of incidents began just after this order was received. On October 31
a Turk killed an Armenian legionnaire after he allegedly tore off a Muslim
woman’s veil.276 A few days later, Kemal sent four lieutenants to the area to
or ga nize irregulars for an attack on the French. Then, on November 16–18,
Kemal convened his army’s corps commanders in Sivas to discuss ways to
limit French “encroachments on Turkish authority.”277 This was followed on
the 24th by the arrival in Maraş of the military governor of Osmaniye, Cap-
tain Pierre André, at the head of a small troop of gendarmes— Turks, Arme-
nians, and Kurds— and French soldiers. André apparently ordered the removal
of the Ottoman flag over the citadel and its replacement with the tricolor. A
mob of Muslims, including gendarmes, removed the tricolor and restored the
Ottoman flag. Preferring to avoid a fight, André withdrew, leaving the citadel
and local government in Turkish hands.278
To reassert their rule, the French beefed up their military in and around
Maraş and replaced André with a governor they thought would be more stead-
fast, General Querette. The general was taking over a city on the brink. In
January 1920 a missionary reported that, in Maraş, “the Turks are bolder and
Mustafa Kemal and the Nationalists
more threatening than I have ever seen.” Anti- Armenian vio lence surged on
the town’s outskirts; Armenians were murdered almost daily. Two were shot
dead by the son of a wealthy Muslim, and the bodies of four more were found
outside a gendarmerie post after disappearing on the road to Zeytun. Arme-
nian villa gers abandoned their fields. The Turks, the missionary reported,
were blaming “bandits,” but the Armenians believed their “neighbors” were
responsible.279 Inside the town, too, the situation grew darker. “ Sister E.,” ap-
parently a nun, wrote that the local Armenian Catholic school closed fre-
quently “owing to the terror which the Turks spread around.”280 Armenian
villa gers fled into town. By late January, the Armenian population of Maraş
had swelled to 22,000.281
On January 18 the Turks charged that the French were interfering with their
administration and demanded that they send away the Armenian legionnaires.
Anticipating vio lence, Armenians and Turks closed their shops, and Armenians
moved into churches for safety. “Armed Turks . . . in considerable numbers”
poured into the city.282 The French agreed to send away 500 legionnaires, but
the legionnaires were ambushed on the Maraş- Antep road on January 20–21.283
The survivors left the dead behind and returned to Maraş.284 The Turks
had their own complaints, alleging that a 3,000- man French relief column
with cannon and machine guns was advancing toward the town from Islahiye
and had destroyed Muslim villages en route.285
On January 21 the French made their move. “They had determined to
strike and strike hard,” an American missionary was told.286 It began when
Querette summoned the Turkish notables and issued an “ultimatum” de-
manding that they turn over the governance of the town.287 The Turks re-
fused. Apparently th
ey told him that he was “obliged to wait until the [Paris]
peace conference is finished” because it was not yet clear “to whom Marash
will belong.”288 The French then arrested six of the notables, including the
deputy mutesarrif, and threatened to hang them and “burn” down the town.
The Turks responded by deploying armed men and fortifying key buildings.
At one o’clock in the after noon, following one or two isolated shots, they
opened fire from the citadel and cut down French sentries and patrols around
town.289
It is not clear whether the local Turkish militiamen were following Kemal’s
instructions or were acting on their own, though undoubtedly Kemal was
Turks and Armenians, 1919–1924
supportive. A few days later, on the 24th, he instructed commanders in the
areas bordering Cilicia to back the guerrilla war against the French and to inter-
dict French reinforcements moving northward from Homs.290 The following
day he underlined his approval, cabling his commanders, “ There is both harm
and disadvantage in delaying operations by the Kuvâ-yi Milliye [National
Forces] against the French any longer. . . . We must respond to French actions
at Marash everywhere throughout the nation.”291 Kemal’s only relevant public
statement also hints at his probable approval of the January 21 action: “At first
there were British units at Maraş, Urfa and Antep. French troops replaced them.
We tried to prevent this occupation. After it became fact, we resorted to po liti cal efforts, then to more active ones.”292 But without access to Turkish documents,
the only direct evidence of orders concerning the opening of hostilities comes
from a Turkish source who claimed the Maraş police commissioner Arslan Bey,
“encouraged by orders of Mustafa Kemal Pasha” proclaimed on the after noon
of the 21st, “Comrades, war has begun. With the grace of God, in the spirit of
the Prophet, and with the self- sacrifice of believers, be resigned to every-
thing! . . . From us, perseverance; from God, help.”293
The French answered the Turkish salvos of January 21 with a cannonade
from positions on the hills above. A missionary in the American compound
