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.

It would be proper and much enlightening to look for the reasons why and how the Ottoman Empire could perpetuate a brillant existence on three continents, Asia, Europe and Africa, in the Akhi Order or Fraternity. In other words, Akhi faith and principles should be counted amongst a myriads of factors that contributed into six centuries of Ottoman domination on these three continents.

Bilindiği gibi Osmanlı Devleti 30 Ekim 1918'de Mondros Ateşkes Antlaşmasını imzalayarak I. Dünya Savaşandan çekildi. Ateşkes Antlaşması 24 maddeden oluşuyordu ve çok ağır hükümleri ihtiva etmekteydi . Antlaşma istismara da çok müsait idi. özellikle bazı maddeler Osmanlı Devletini tamamen savunmasız hale düşürüyor ve müttefikler suni sebeplerle çıkartılacak karışıklıklarla emniyetlerinin bozulduğunu İleri sürerek ülkenin önemli stratejik mevkilerini işgal etme hakkını elde ediyorlardı. Nitekim Ateşkes Antlaşmasından sonra İtilâf Devletleri Antlaşmayı istismar ederek, daha önce aralarında yaptıkları gizli antlaşmalardaki nüfuz bölgelerini işgal etmeye başladılar. Diğer taraftan Ateşkes Antlaşmasının imzalanmasından evvel 400.000'i aşan Türk Ordusu, Antlaşma' nın tatbikatından sonra bu sayı iyice düşerek birlikler kadro haline gelmişti.

Significant socio-political and economic events in the lives of nations and groups occur within the framework of historical and geographical determinants at work, together with the systemic and subsystemic factors that impinge upon them. Often, the domestic linkage of foreign policy and the impact of foreign policy on domestic politics are too closely intertwined and, therefore, can not be sharply and clearly delineated. The geographic locations and the historical experiences of nations mold into forms, norms, and traditions, producing national cultures. Expansion of a culture or its collaboration with other cultures produce similar or synthetic patterns of life, frame of mind, and a general in the formation of events.

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.

Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'nu harbe sürekleyen olayları şöyle özetleyebiliriz: İtilâf Devletleri, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'nu tarafsız tutmaya çalışmış fakat ittifaka yanaşmamışlardı. Çünkü her birinin Türkiye üzerinde başka başka emelleri vardı. Rusya Boğazlara resmen egemen olmak, ayrıca Doğu Anadolu'yu elde ederek İskenderun'a inmek istiyordu. İngiltere Basra Körfezini, Şattülarap'ı, Hindistan'ın bir parçası olarak kabul ediyor, Hint yolu ve Süveyş Kanalı'nın güvenliği bakımından da Filistin'e el atmak istiyordu. Fransa, Suriye ve Kilikya'ya göz koymuştu. Kesin sonuç yeri olan Avrupa Cephesinin aleyhine, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'nun çeşitli yerlerinde, cepheler açmak zorunda kaldı. Türkler tarafından Boğazların kapatılması, Rusya'yı her türlü müttefik yardımından yoksun bıraktı. Bu nedenle kesin sonucun elde edilmesi gecikti. Bu gecikme Rusya'nın içten çökmesine sebep olmakla kalmadı, müttefiklerine de pahalıya mal oldu.

Osmanlı devleti ile İtiliaf devletleri arasında imzalanan antlaşmadır. 30 Ekim 1918'de imzalanmıştır.

Although the term Ottoman Archives should in fact include any archive that once fell within the boundaries of the Ottoman Empire, it only reminds us of the Başbakanlık (Primeministerial) Archives and that of Topkapı Palace in Istanbul. Furthermore the Ottoman archival material whether found in the National Archive of Cairo or in Ragusa Archive of Yoguslavia are of no lesser importance than those found in Başbakanlık Archive although not as abundant. The scholars of the Balkan states such as Albania, Bosnia, Bulgaria and Hungary have not only taken interest in the Ottoman archives in their own countries, but also in the Primeministerial Archive of Istanbul, and have studied and published many documents -especially the ones pertaining to their own countries- from these archives. Unfortunately the Turks and the Arabs have only recently started taking interest in these archives and particularly the Arab scholars in this field are very scant. There is no doubt that these archives are not only important for the Muslim countries but also for the world history. The report prepared by Unesco in 1982 makes this point very clear.

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.

The sancak of Amid (today known as Diyarbakır) has been ruled by the Byzantines, Arabs, Selçukids, Artukids, Ayyubids, Akkoyunlus and Ottomans. Therefore the sancak has been exposed to the cultures of these states. Thus the province had undergone a great cultural impact which can clearly be traced in the personal and place names used in the sancak. The place and personal names recorded in the 1518 Ottoman cadastral survey of the sancak of Amid are the basis of some pointers made in this article.