The most vigorous discussion area of the Turkish-Armenian imbroglio has been darkened by the effective propagandas made in and after 1915.

The Crises of 1915 does constitute a quite dramatic tragedy of war in various aspects.

Today this issue has been turned into an international conflict in relation to the recording of the history.

The positions of the parties involved in this inveterate controversy are as follows:

(1) The Armenian Diaspora and the Republic of Armenia claim that the military activities undertaken by the Armenian Committees were in favor of the enemy during the war and actions aiming at “rescuing themselves from the Ottoman sovereignty”.

(2) Under the conditions of the First World War, making use of the Armenian Committees, and stabbing the Turkish Forces in the back was quite normal. Reminding of this particular fact by the Turkish historians is of course distressing. It is an obligation for the foreign parliaments and for the international organizations to pass pronouncements of “genocide” of political nature for they hold it as “wergeld” in debt to the Armenian committees. Thus, with the acceptance of such decisions taken, the “innocent lambs of 1915” would forget how they were exploited by the Entente Powers in the First World War.

(3) Turkish people perceived the military activities and massacres committed by the Ottoman Armenian Committees as a threat to the existence of the Empire necessitating self-defense and government responsibility.

In order to be able to solve the controversy, the following questions ought to be answered:

What are the military activities directed against the Ottoman army and Ottoman citizens by the Armenian Dashnak, Hntchaq and Ramgavar Committees at the beginning of the First World War?

Can those activities be considered as “indirect war” or defined as a “civil war”?

Or do they require different conceptual interpretation?