The peninsula of the Peloponnese (in southern Greece), which is also known as the Morea, was first partly conquered in 1397 CE by die Ottoman Sultan Beyazit I from the Byzantines, and was completely overrun in 1460 by Sultan Mehmet II, who was received as a deliverer by the Greek Orthodox Christian population, then suffering under the rule of the Roman Catholics. In 1698 the Ottomans were complled to cede the Peloponnese to the Venetians, under die Treaty of Carlowitz, but in 1718 it was retroceded to the Ottoman Empire under the Treaty of Passarowitz.

When Sir Horace Rumbold, the British Minister in Switzerland, succeeded Admiral Sir John de Robeck, on 17 November 1920, as High Commissioner in Istanbul, the Ottoman Empire, a member of the Central Powers, was already defeated by the Entente Powers (the Allies) in the disastrous Great War, and was forced to sign the Armistice of Mondros (Mudros) on 30 October 1918.

In this paper I intend to trace cursorily the background of the incidents that took place in the Ottoman Empire, mainly in 1915, that caused a great tragedy to the people of Anatolia, especially to the Turks, other Muslims, and Armenians. I also intınd to examine that tragedy, its instigators, causes, effects, and how it was exploited by Britain's wartime propagandists, in the light of new documents that have come to my notice during recent studies. I hope that my conclusions may contribute to a better understanding of the Turco-Armenian relations, and of how those amicable relations were disrupted and exploited by external and extremist forces immediately before and during the fateful years of the First World War.

During the first part of the fifteenth century Jews were subjected to systematic persecution in Bohemia, Austria, and Poland; but it was their oppression in Portugal and Spain, where some of them had submitted, under pain of death, to enforced Christianization, culminating, in 1492, in their expulsion, that gave the greatest impetus to their mass exodus. The Catholic kings, at the end of their reconquista of Spain, had not only cracked down radically on the Moriscoes (Moors), and on all the other Muslims of the Iberian peninsula, they had also envisaged a final solution for their Jewish subjects.

Following the establishment of regular diplomatic relations between the Ottoman Empire and foreign states in the sixteenth century, the Ottomans began to face what came to be known as the protégé system, which later proved to be the most dangerous threat to the very existence of their empire. This was the notion of foreign protection for the non-Muslim subjects of the Ottoman Empire.

Tenacious and systematic attempts are being made by a number of Armenian 'scholars' to sway, especially Jewish public opinion, that there is a link between the experiences of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire during World War I, which they label as 'the first genocide of the twentieth century', and those of the European Jewry during World War II. By their persistent attempts, skilful manipulation of the feelings of some Jewish and other sympathisers, and masterful use of distorted, tendencious, and even forged 'documents', they have succeeded in winning over some of those who are the real victims of the Holocaust, and a number of younger generation Jewish writers, such as Yehuda Bauer, Leo Kuper, and a few others. Is there such a parallel? Let us examine the arguments for and against before we answer this question.

For almost six centuries the position of the Armenian nation (millet) within the Ottoman Empire, was one of relative peace, order, security and prosperity until the genesis, in the 1870s, of the so-called "Eastern Question". The Turco-Russian war of 1877 had resulted in the abortive Treaty of San Stefano, and had brought about the signature of the Cyprus Convention and the Treaty of Berlin. These treaties were supposed to procure more privileges for the Ottoman Armenians, but they were actually intended to enable the Great Powers, in particular Britain and Russia, to interfere in the internal affairs of the Ottoman Empire with the hope of snatching a greater share of the spoils when the Empire ultimately collapsed.

Seventy years ago, in June 1916 to be precise, Sherif Hussein ibn Ali, the Hashemite amir of Mecca, having been encouraged by the British with vague promises of "independence for the Arabs", revolted against his suzerain, the Ottoman Sultan-Caliph, and became an instrument in the destruction of the Caliphate by Christian Powers. In the words of Robert Lacey, "his (Hussein's) movement was less an Arab revolt than an Anglo-Hashemite conspiracy", cemented by about one million pounds sterling in British gold.

When the Turks made the fateful decision of embracing Islam as their religion, they became a marked people in the eyes of the Christian World, which saw that religion as a great danger to its very existence. The Turks failure, or refusal, to accept Christianity, despite the efforts of Pope Pius II, did not endear them to the Christians of the West; nor did their contribution to the Muslim cause during the great politico-religious upheaval of the Crusades. These religious wars created bitterness, hatred and hostility between Islam and Christianity, which were to last for centuries. Christendom saw Islam as a deviance, a bogey, which, it believed, aimed at eradicating the Christian heritage; and therefore the Ottoman Turks, who had espoused the cause of Islam by taking over the Caliphate, became the object of that Christian hatred and hostility.

In the weekly magazine History of the First World War, of September, 1970, published in London, an article appeared under the sensational title of Genocide in Turkey by Dr. A. O. Sarkissian, an Armenian, who claims that approximately 500,000 Armenians were killed by the Turks in the last months of 1915, and that the majority of the remainder was deported to desert areas where they died of starvation or disease, at the lowest estimate 1,500,000 having died as a "direct result of a carefully-laid plan". The writer then audaciously suggests that Adolf Hitler took the treatment accorded to the Armenians as an example in ordering, on 22nd August, 1939, "the extermination of the Polish-speaking race". Dr. Sarkissian, who apparently prefers sensationalism to scholarly research, and who, being a party to the case undoubtedly has an axe to grind, has giyen an absolutely biassed account of Armenian deportations and massacres. He has failed to carry out further research connected with the subject and to consult some of the most recent publications, based on British, French, Russian, Turkish and even Armenian sources, and on the inexhaustible documents in the British Foreign Office Archives in London which throw more light on the subject. Re has preferred to write a propaganda account, rather than to produce a scholarly work, based on facts and figures, which would have been more appreciated. But then he seems to be one of the typical vociferous Armenian propagandists, some of whom, recent documents prove beyond any doubt, were themselves directly responsible for the misfortunes of the Armenian people.