INTRODUCTORY
IN the summer of 1908, when the Young Turks compelled Abdul Hamid to re-establish the constitution he had granted, and almost immediately suppressed, at the beginning of his reign thirty years before, they had a good press throughout the civilized world. Writers of all nations lauded the Young Turks, and described in glowing terms the wonderful future of the Ottoman Empire under the régime of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. The goodwill of Europe and America, and practical encouragement as well, was given to the reformers of Turkey in every possible way. Especially among the Powers,Great Britain and France aided the Young Turks to establish the new régime by lending them money and capable advisers for the Treasury and Navy, the two departments of the Turkish Government that were the weakest.
One has only to look through the files of the newspapers of Occidental Europe to establish the truth of this statement. As one of the group of writers for the European and American press on Turkish affairs, during the first difficult (and disappointing!) years of the constitutional régime, I can say honestly that our loyalty to the Young Turks was unswerving. In the hope that the end would justify the means, I am afraid that there was not one of us who did not occasionally sin against his own convictions bysuppressio veri, if not byactualsuggestio falsi. Occidental diplomacy was just as loyal to Young Turkey as was Occidental journalism. Successive Grand Viziers assured me that the loyal co-operation of London and Paris, through willingness to forbear criticism and to leave much unsaid, had made possible the maintenance of the newly-established constitution throughout the first difficult winter, and the weathering of the storm of Abdul Hamid’s attempted counter-revolution.
It was my fortune to go to Turkey during the first month of the new régime, and to live in Asia Minor and Constantinople until after the disastrous war with the Balkan States. From 1908 to 1913, I enjoyed exceptional opportunities of travelling in European and Asiatic Turkey, of becoming acquainted with themen who were guiding the destinies of the Ottoman Empire, and of witnessing the fatal events that changed in five years the hope of regeneration into the despair of dissolution. At Smyrna, at Constantinople, and at Beirut, I took part in the fêtes to celebrate the birth of the new régime, and saw the ostensible reconciliation of Christian, Moslem, and Jewish elements. Christian priests and Moslem ulema embraced each other and drove through the streets in triumphal procession in the same carriages.
Above all, from the very beginning, I was in a position to become intimately acquainted with the Armenians of Turkey and to find out their real sentiments towards the Young Turks and the new régime. I was in Adana, in April, 1909, when their enthusiastic loyalty was rewardedby a massacre of thirty thousand of them in Cilicia and northern Syria. I was able to observe the attitude of the Armenians before the massacre. Their blood was spilled before my eyes in Adana. I was with them in different places after the fury of the massacre had passed.
This preamble in the first person is reluctantly written. But I feel that it must be given, in order that I may anticipate exception to my statements on the ground that I am “not acquainted with the problem,” and that “it is impossible for an outsider to form a judgment on these matters.” For I have always found that the Turkand his friends, when you speak to them on the Armenian question, flatly deny your facts and challenge the competency of your judgment.It is necessary, then, for me to state that the facts set forth here are given with intimate personal knowledge of their authenticity, and that the judgments passed upon these facts are the result of years of study and observation at close range.