After the defeat of the Greek army in September 1922 in Asia Minor, the Armenian populations (and also other Christian groups) of western and northwestern parts of Anatolia, eastern Thrace, and Cilicia began to flee as they feared retaliations by the approaching Kemalist army and the chetes, armed bands. Mostly between 1920 and 1922, but also in the few years that followed, about 90,000-100,000 Armenians from Anatolia fled to Greece. They were mostly old men, women, children, and orphans. Armenians’ uneven distribution in Greece tending towards the urban settlements and their agglomeration in certain districts of Athens and Piraeus resulted in the formation of new neighborhoods with a distinct character. While in Thessaloniki, which had become a big refugee city in the aftermath of WWI, Armenians lived in refugee camps in impoverished conditions. Correspondence between the Ministries of the Greek state and the international humanitarian aid organizations reveal that the settlement, relocation, employment, and the health situation of Armenian refugees and orphans was a current and serious concern for the Greek authorities. One of the main aims of this paper is to explore the social profile and the refugee experiences of the Armenians who came to Greece. In some ways, their experiences were similar to those of the Christian Orthodox who came to Greece with the Greek-Turkish Population Exchange, and in others to those of the Anatolian Armenians who fled to other destinations in the Mediterranean and the Middle East after the genocide. In addition to examining the social characteristics and the experiences of Armenians as refugees in a host country in the postwar period, this paper will also investigate the Armenian identity/ identities in Greece, the Armenians’ conceptions of homeland, and how the Armenians remembered their past and how they have made it a part of their hybrid identity as the Armenians of Greece. The history of post-genocide Armenian communities in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East has not been sufficiently researched so far. Hence, this paper aims to shed light on the post-WWI history of Armenians in Greece by analyzing a set of sources, such as archival documentation from the Hellenic Ministry of Foreign Affairs, sources from church archives, newspapers, and oral history interviews taken from second- and third-generation Greek Armenians.

As the centennial of the Treaty of Lausanne approaches (1923) more scholarly attention will turn to this foundational document which sealed the birth of the contemporary Turkey as it is recognized today by international powers. The Treaty, which is still in effect, has special provisions for the management of non-Muslims who remained within Turkey’s borders even after deportation, genocide, and continued discrimination. “Non-Moslem nationals” of Turkey were recognized as “minorities” by the Treaty and given certain rights to practice their cultural differences to prevent fifth-column-like grievances and secessionism. The Ankara Delegation tried to avoid granting of special rights to non-Muslims but it was forced by Allied powers to recognize at least the religious difference of some of its citizenry. In this proposed panel I will discuss how Armenians who remained in Istanbul after World War I responded to the conflicting demands of the Ankara Delegation on the one hand and the Armenian groups in the emerging diaspora.Headed by Ismet Pasha, the Ankara Delegation at the Lausanne Conference (which lasted nine months) pushed the leadership of the community to denounce the idea that Turkish Armenians were represented by the Armenian mission to the Lausanne Conference (they were just a “mission” in that Armenians were not given a hearing at Lausanne since the Soviet Armenia was not party to the negotiations). Led primarily with a a desire (and political need) to peacefully co-habit with the victorious Turks, the Armenian spokespeople in Istanbul tried everything to distance themselves from the Armenians in Lausanne who pushed for more demands for Armenian, including a National Home inside the new Turkey, a development that the Turkish forces easily read as “separatism,” a mortal treat. Based on my research on Armenian press and memoirs, I will argue that the terms of the ongoing hierarchical relationship between the Turkish state and its Armenian citizens were established during this time.

Armenians settling in Cyprus post-Genocide provide a microcosm of the wider diaspora experience, arriving as a diverse population from cities and smaller towns, some highly educated in Armenian, others Turkish-speaking. The adjustment to joining the small Armenian Cypriot community included a mix of mutual distrust, friction, philanthropy and aid similar to that found around the Armenian world during the resettlement process. As the French Mandate in Cilicia ended, Armenian refugees began arriving in Cyprus, primarily as family units. The largest group sailed from Mersin, undergoing refusals at various ports en route until the British colonial government finally allowed entry there. Many had not intended to settle in Cyprus but sought safety under the rule of Britain or France until they could return to their homeland. Armenians looked to the British for stability, protection and an opportunity for education and re-growth. The refugees had a range of educational backgrounds and included leaders of Armenian Cilicia, teachers, newspaper editors, and others who would soon change the tempo of Armenian life in Cyprus. Multiple language skills and education enabled many Armenians to work in civil service positions and as interpreters. Others brought crafts and skills then unknown in Cyprus. They settled in Turkish neighborhoods, saving on expense but also being fluent in Turkish and not Greek. Aware of Greek nationalist dreams, Armenians kept a low profile and focused on being good subjects of the Crown. The experience of Genocide, passed on privately at home, was also discussed in public, the local and international Armenian press, and commemorated in events in the church/school courtyards. Armenian-language education for all ages became a top priority as a new identity was formed, focusing on what could be shared as a group – language, religion and a broader history. Speeches, song and perhaps most importantly, the condensed power of recited poetry at these events served to keep the Genocide in focus and to narrow its memorialization to a narrative shared around the diaspora. The performance of identity, whether in prose or poetry quickly became shared in Cyprus and across the diaspora. Armenians in Cyprus arrived with diverse heritage of their different towns and over time, through education, the church and newspapers, grew to see themselves as one people.

Charting the presence of the Armenians in Lebanon throughout the centuries my analysis will focus on the transformation of the Armenian refugees to a relatively monolithic community in Lebanon from the early 1920s up to the late 1940s. I will argue for a continuous presence of Armenians in Lebanon, and that the contribution of the Catholic Armenian Bzemmar Monastery, the role the first Armenian Mutesarrif Dawud Basha played during his term (1860-1866) in the Governorate of Mount Lebanon, the input renowned Armenians had had generated a positive perception among the native population vis-à-vis the refugee Armenians. I will examine the process of intra-Armenian integration of this mass of refugees with diverse denominational/provincial/ linguistic/partisan backgrounds. Life in the camps, the shifts of their dwellings from tents, to tin cottages to wooden constructions and their eventual relocation to new residential areas. I will detail how health concerns were addressed by missionary and transnational Armenian philanthropic organizations, as well as the reconstruction of community outlets (churches, schools…). I will categorize this Armenian space, like athletics, culture (choirs, theater and publications), education, philanthropy, residential areas and politics, which triggered disagreements and the establishment of fault-lines among the Armenian parties. I will analyze the initial steps taken to set up an administrative body to run the affairs of the refugees, the role played by the church, the compatriotic unions and eventually the parties. I will deliberate the process of the integration of Armenian refugees into the local polity through the diverse tracks of politics, economy, social relations, everyday life, as well as the role played by the Lebanese Armenian newspapers in associating the refugees to the Lebanese social fabric. I will dwell on the naturalization of the community and study the ins and outs of this political integration. I will debate that both the Lebanese consociational system and the circumstances of the initial stages of Lebanese state-building enabled the refugees to undergo a process of reshaping with the least interference of local communities and the state. I will speculate whether the French mandate on Syria-Lebanon helped Armenians to organize cross-border activities. I will discuss the impact of community mobility on the dynamics of the community. Lastly I will examine the role the orphans played in making the Lebanese Armenian community the economic tiger of Lebanon and the nerve center of the Armenian Diaspora.