Tall Armenian Tale


The Other Side of the Falsified Genocide


  Husband and Wife "Historians" Under Armenian Influence  
First Page


Major Players
Links & Misc.



Mahmut Ozan
Edward Tashji
Sam Weems

 Let's get to the meat of the matter. Aggressive and unchallenged Armenian propaganda has taken such hold in Western societies, those who know better... many "neutral" historians... have swallowed it all, hook, line and sinker.

Review what is expected of a historian, as Prof. Justin McCarthy beautifully worded it (for the rest, please tune in here):

Historians should love the truth.  A historian has a duty to try to write only the truth.  Before historians write they must look at all relevant sources.  They must examine their own prejudices, then do all they can to insure that those prejudices do not overwhelm the truth.  Only then should they write history.  The historians creed must be, "Consider all the sides of an issue; reject your own prejudices.  Only then can you hope to find the truth."

Who are our guardians against mindless and hateful propaganda? It's historians. Real historians.

The real historians have mostly been scared away after Armenians and their supporters (like Israel Charny) went after their precious reputations with below-the-belt smear tactics.

Who is left? Mainly, those who pretend to be historians. Ones who rely mainly on propaganda, and ones who can't keep a lid on their prejudices.

This page will briefly cover one frightening example and, to a lesser extent, her historian husband. (And the man is not just any historian, mind you, as you'll soon be reading. His case is, in a sense, way more frightening.)

ADDENDUM: Having encountered a detailed account of Dr. Anderson's take on Armenian massacres, there is now an expanded section below, offering "A Closer Look at Anderson's Scholarship."




Prof. Margaret Lavinia Anderson

Margaret Lavinia Anderson is a professor at Berkeley, the University of  California. One of her specialties is, as the history faculty's web page tells us, the "Armenian Genocide." Her recent research, in her words: "...a project on Germany and the Ottoman Empire from the time of the massacres of the Armenians in the mid-1890s until ca. 1932."

Let's take a look at how she is approaching this matter, as a "historian," from her web page study guide for students, dated Spring 2006.

Among her required books are those from "genocide scholars" Donald Bloxham (The Great Game of Genocide: Imperialism, Nationalism, and the Destruction of the Armenians) and Jay Winter. Note Bloxham's book came out roughly around the time as Prof. Guenter Lewy's "The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide." Why does our "historian," whose duty is to consider all relevant sources as you have read above, ignore this work? Could it be that Bloxham has settled on the "Destruction" of the Armenians, which may be much closer to her prejudices, whereas Lewy finds such a conclusion as "Disputed"?

Do you get the feeling that Dr. Anderson has made up her mind about this matter, and is only going to rely on the sources that affirm her thesis? Is that what a real historian does?

Bloxham does get points; he vouches for massacres of Azeris that were committed by Armenians (what the Jewish Times found analogous to the Holocaust in 1990), and he does take some of the more vicious hard-liners to count on their scholarship, particularly Vahakn Dadrian. But that's pretty much it. Bloxham, like Anderson, relies almost purely on propaganda; for example, he vouches for a dead count of Armenians numbering 1.2 million. (An impossibility, given that there were around 1.5 million to begin with, and hard-liners concede one million died. The Armenian Patriarch, from his bloated pre-war figure of 2.1 million which propagandists prefer to accept — even though the Patriarch "revised" his figure to 1.85 million elsewhere — didn't go as high as Bloxham. The Patriarch Zaven said, in 1918's tail end, that 1,260,000 Armenians survived, and 840,000 died.)

As genuine historian Justin McCarthy reminds us:

"We must affirm a basic principle: Those who take propaganda as their source themselves write propaganda, not history."

Some of the other works Anderson recommends for students as "Possible Follow-ups":

Stephan H. Astourian, "Modern Turkish Identity and the Armenian Genocide. From Prejudice to Racist Nationalism," in R. G. Hovannisian, ed., Remembrance and Denial. The Case of the
Armenian Genocide
(1998), 23-50.

Indeed, a work of true scholarship, mainly relying on one-sided and biased sources. If there is any "prejudice and racist nationalism" involved, no doubt the cited pro-Armenian sources will live up to them.

With the recommendation of the above book, it's apparent Prof. Anderson holds to the "pan-Turanism" theory as genocidal motive. After centuries, for no good reason, the Turks suddenly decided to slaughter Armenians, because of "prejudice and racist nationalism."

Prof. Anderson also will go on to cite Justin McCarthy's "Death and Exile." Has she read this work? If so, why has she dismissed the real historical reason as to why Armenians stopped being the "Loyal Nation"?  McCarthy outlined them beautifully, relying on sources that had no reason to lie, as a real scholar would. Here is a taste:
Why did Ottoman Armenians & Muslims Become Enemies?

Another recommended work is Mark Levene's  "Creating a Modern 'Zone of Genocide': The Impact of Nation-and State-Formation on Eastern Anatolia, 1878-1923," in a 1998 issue of Holocaust and Genocide Studies. "Includes the postwar Turkish massacres of Kurds in the story."

Again, the insistence that Turks behaved in monstrous fashion. Since nationalism is what gruesomely tore the Ottoman nation apart, there was little tolerance for further uprisings. Yes, the Kurds were dealt a heavy-hand during this re-birth of a devastated nation, at times unfairly. But it is not like the Turks said, oh! Let's go kill some Kurds for sport. Once again, it was reaction to action.

Anderson must not have paid attention to the [mis]behavior of the "unmanageable" Kurdish tribes, throughout the years. "Death and Exile" brushed with the topic; here is a taste, with
Rebellious as Armenians: Ottoman KURDS.

As bad as these examples are, Anderson actually offers the Wellington House propaganda of the Blue Book as real history. Yes, on her reading list is actually:

James Bryce and Arnold Toynbee, The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, 1915-1916. Documents Presented to Viscount Grey of Falloden by Viscount Bryce, (Reprint, 2000).

Toynbee himself decried his work from these years as "war propaganda." And no real historian can regard James Bryce as an objective party.

That is simply inexcusable for a real historian.

Now she attempts to be "fair" by presenting "the other side":

Turkish government's version of these events: The URL for the website devoted to its response to charges of genocide is constantly changing, but if you search google for "Turkey," you will get the Turkish government's website, which allows you to search via "Armenians." At last check it was at ...turkey.org/p_armn00.htm

That link no longer worked, but I searched for what this Turkish embassy's page had to say. I suppose their best shot was a page called "Armenian Allegations." There are some claims made here that I don't care for, but overall the truth-seeker looks at the sources. For example, Bryce and Toynbee's sources for their propaganda book were Armenians and missionaries. Trustworthy? Not by a long shot. In contrast... just a quick glance at the sources here:

"Fact 1": Boghos Nubar. The Encyclopedia Britannica. French missionary Monseigneur Touchet. Would any of these sources have lied for the Turks? Why is Prof. Anderson dismissing these with the strong implication that it's what the "Turkish government says"?

I don't desire to get into the Turkish page, but "Fact 3" appropriately adds, "Armenian Americans purport that the wartime propaganda of the enemies of the Ottoman Empire constitutes objective evidence," and gives Ambassador Morgenthau as an example, explaining why Morgenthau was so unreliable. There is nothing said here that does not conform to genuine historical fact.

 What kind of a historian would vouch for Bryce and Toynbee, and dismiss sources that had no reason to lie? It's not like "Turkish propaganda" is offering opinions of Turkish government flunkies. It is not like the "personal opinions" in the U.S. archives, as the British embassy worded it, while desperately seeking judicial evidence to convict the Turks holed up in Malta.

Why is Prof. Anderson allowing herself to be so prejudiced?

Here is where she cites McCarthy and his book of genuine scholarship, Death and Exile. The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922. Anderson comments:

"McCarthy is the most serious of the denialists."

With such childish labels, Anderson is proving herself to be a propagandist with an agenda, and not a genuine historian. And here is where she really goes to town:

Roger W. Smith, Eric Markisen (sic), and Robert Jay Lifton, "Professional Ethics and the Denial of the Armenian Genocide," Holocaust and Genocide Studies 9/1 (Spring 1995): 1-22. Exposes scandal that Heath Lowry, working for a Turkish lobby, coached Turkish ambassador in campaign to deny the genocide and was rewarded with the newly endowed Ataturk Chair of Turkish History at Princeton.

Heath Lowry was working for the Institute for Turkish Studies (ITS), which says on its web page, with good reason: "In keeping with its charter and tax-exempt status, the Institute does not seek to influence legislation." That would not make the ITS a "lobby." A lobbying group would be ANCA or the AAA, sophisticated Armenian organizations that instruct the faithful to perform letter-writing campaigns and the like, supported by large amounts of money behind them. The purpose of the ITS is to further Turkish Studies, mainly dealing with history. It is shameful that Anderson is doling out information strictly along propagandistic lines.

And the only ones suffering from "Professional Ethics," in this terrible paper Anderson has vouched for, were the authors Smith, Markusen and Lifton. Lowry did not "coach" Ambassador Nuzhet Kandemir, but sized up Lifton's amateurish work at Kandemir's request (Kandemir, not pretending to be a historian, needed an authority. Where was he going to go?), where Lifton relied 100% on the work of hardcore propagandist Vahakn Dadrian. A good part of the reason why these ethically challenged "genocide scholars" decided to create a "scandal" was because they wanted to send the message that those who go against their genocide agenda will suffer from below-the-belt tactics. It worked; Lowry was knocked out of the debate, and the episode (largely directed by Peter Balakian) intimidated genuine historians from the study of this topic.

If Lowry was awarded the chair at Princeton, that is because he happened to be one of the few qualified Turkish and Ottomanist historians around, backed up by very scholarly works, several that have been featured on this site. It's not as though the Turkish government could have pushed Princeton University around and demanded the condition that they hire Lowry. As a Princeton Alumni Weekly article from this episode made clear (see last link):

...[Princeton U]niversity spokesperson Jacquelyn Savani said that the $700,000 given by Turkey for the chair "is not the amount of money, given the $4 billion endowment of Princeton University, that should even raise suspicion. The fact of the matter is that not for $100 million could the Turkish government put its man in that chair. Not with this faculty." (Princeton's hiring procedure for faculty is rigorous: tenured faculty members of the department recommend candidates to the Committee on Appointments and Advancements, formed from the faculty at large, which makes the final decision.) Harvard, Georgetown, and the University of Chicago received similar grants, but only Princeton has established a fully endowed chair in Turkish studies.

It's maddening that Anderson would align herself so fully with these despicable propagandistic forces. Why is she doing it?

She is hardly alone, of course. She is the rule, not the exception. But her duty as responsible historian would be to fight these awful forces, not to join them. Even if Lowry was guilty of everything she is telling us (at the expense of her totally ignoring the partisanship of Armenian professors, of course), it is the research that ultimately matters.

To cap off her recommended list is the following work of amazing scholarship:

Constantinople (Ecumenical patriarchate), Persecution of the Greeks in Turkey, 1914-1918 (Constantinople [London, Printed by the Hesperia Press] 1919).

Anderson's bigoted message: Turks.... bad.

Can you imagine the harm she is causing, poisoning the minds of her impressionable students with her prejudices? Can you further believe that she is serving at such a respectable institution as Berkeley? (The second is most believable, but tragic. Her kind is the rule, not the exception.)

(She has signed the July 29, 2005 "Open Letter by 257 Scholars
to President Robert Kocharian of Armenia in Support of Yektan Turkyilmaz."
Not that this was a bad cause, as Armenia displayed once again her Dashnak terroristic ways, victimizing the Kurdish Turk... obviously an asset for the genocide club, and club members did not like it when one of their own stupidly got threatened by Armenia herself. What's disconcerting is that the others who signed this letter reads like a Who's Who of the Armenian Genocide Industry.  If there is any doubt as to where Dr. Anderson is coming from, this letter helps clear things up.)


 As misguided and propagandistic as Margaret Lavinia Anderson unfortunately is, let's take a look at her historian husband, Dr. James Sheehan.

 Prof. James J. Sheehan

He seems a little more level-headed than his wife, of whom he comments (regarding a paper of his, "The Problem of Sovereignty in European History," where James Bryce sadly gets a nod), "Margaret Lavinia Anderson is my most astute—although not always most gentle—critic." Naturally, a husband is in a most precarious position, but objectively, Dr. Anderson comes across as anything but "astute." if she were, she would force herself to be more open-minded, as real historians are duty-bound to do.

In a paper, "Contested Histories," Sheehan spills the beans on where he thinks the "Armenian" truth lies. But at least he does so fairly, without embarrassingly inflammatory language such as "denialist."

"The fate of the Ottoman Empire's Armenian minority is one of the most active contemporary examples of a politically charged contest over the past," Dr. Sheehan correctly tells us.  "Everyone agrees that in 1915, when the empire was engaged in a desperate struggle for its survival during the First World War, a large number of Armenians perished and many others were removed from the towns and villages in which they lived for centuries." True.

At issue is why and how the Armenian population of eastern Anatolia disappeared. One side claims that the Armenians died or were displaced in what amounted to a civil war, in which they were active participants rather than passive victims. Allied with the Russian invaders, they betrayed their country and its army, and killed tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of their Turkish neighbors. The other side regards what happened in 1915 as the result of orders given by the government in Constantinople to cleanse Anatolia of its Christian population—Nestorians, Assyrians, and Greeks, as well as Armenians—by killing the men and driving the women and children into the desert. This was not civil war but genocide, the intentional destruction of a particular culture and community, a foreshadowing of what would happen to Europe's Jews a quarter of a century later."

This is good. He is telling us accurately where both sides of this polarized discussion stand. (Although the fact that the Nestorians and Assyrians — aren't they pretty much the same thing? — and the Greeks were not subjected to a resettlement policy should have triggered his scholarly alarm bells as to how false these claims also happen to be. In addition, wasn't the "genocidal motive" to kill off not just the Christians, but anyone who didn't fit into the Turkish mold? Why then, were the Jews spared? And the Arabs, who also treacherously rebelled, as did segments of all these other populations? Why doesn't our "historian" pay attention to these facts and pure, simple logic?)

Now for the tricky part. Which side does Historian Sheehan go with? Here we go:

Although there are scholars on both sides, I think it is fair to say that the overwhelming majority of researchers outside of Turkey support some version of the Armenian narrative—even if some are uncertain about the term genocide.

We are getting into so much trouble.

Who are these "overwhelming majority of researchers"? Do they fit into the description of real historian that we observed at the top of this page? No. The real scholars, that is, those who dispassionately examine the real facts and not the propaganda, have been frightened away. What we're left with are unscrupulous Armenians such as Peter Balakian who write abominations as "The Burning Tigris," and his "genocide scholar" allies.

These views are upheld by a cowardly media, because everyone knows the genocide scholar is noble, since genocide is the worst crime against humanity. No one stops to think about their faith-based agenda, the hatred and racism they perpetuate or cause, and their harmful "end justifies the means" tactics.

When powerful and influential forces succeed in making their views the common wisdom, that has nothing to do with the "truth." And so far, that is what Sheehan is dangerously vouching for: the sanctity of majority opinion, the kiss of death for any real scholar to give credence to.

There are no shortcuts; the way to get at truth boils down to individual research, where one must scratch deep below the easy surface. A real scholar wouldn't give beans about what anyone else has to say. A real scholar would sit down and begin the long, hard work that is required.

Now Sheehan begins to cement his partisanship, and thus endanger his credibility, by blaming the "Turkish government":

The scholarly discourse, however, is deeply affected by the involvement of the Turkish government, which has vigorously and consistently denied that a genocide—or indeed any government-directed massacres—took place.

Yes, Prof. Sheehan. Instead of sounding so aghast, why not display your historical talents by coming up with the factual evidence that these massacres were government directed? I don't think he's going to do that. Because the "majority opinion," just like his wife, is telling him that "Turks are bad." That seems to be good enough for him.

 As a result of government pressures, discussion of the issue within Turkey is difficult and perhaps dangerous; access to relevant archival sources has been limited to those with "reliable" views.

Now he is beginning to sound like a card-carrying member of the Armenian propaganda league.

Is he telling us the material in the portion of the archives that have been made available is irrelevant? What is making him say that? By the same token, why is he not voicing his outrage that the archives in Armenia, and the Dashnak archives in Boston, are totally inaccessible?

What is difficult (that is, hard to stomach) is for one-sided "genocide club" discussions to take place. Balanced discussion has been in existence for a long while. (Here is a 1990 example, where Levon Marashlian participated. Other "club" participants were invited, but shied away.) These days (actually, for years now, but it's getting worse), even purely propagandistic books by Vahakn Dadrian have found a home in Turkey, as the powerful tentacles of the well-financed industry have begun to close in.

 In response, Armenians and their supporters have lobbied parliamentary bodies throughout the world to pass resolutions affirming or commemorating the genocide. Up until now, 17 assemblies have voted to recognize the genocide, and in three countries (Uruguay, Argentina, and France) recognition has the force of law.

What a pity that a "historian" is choosing to give credence to the reasons why these resolutions have been finding acceptance, which has nothing to do with historical truth. As if the politicians voting for these resolutions are not swayed by Armenian wealth or intimidation tactics, along with ignorance and anti-Turkish prejudice, and as if it is the job of a politician to put aside real governmental work and endeavor to become a real historian.

(Regarding the word "response," implying that the poor, innocent Armenians were forced to do something against Terrible Turkish injustice: The Turks were silent over this episode for many years, as that is the cultural mentality of Turkish people, and it does not advertise its sufferings; in addition, there is a pride against legitimizing people practicing underhanded tactics... choosing instead to ignore them. The dirtiness of Armenian and Greek propaganda became widely evident by the 1920s, and Armenians were forced to crawl away. In 1965, with the 50th anniversary of their cause for existence and now-dim memories, they vigorously renewed their efforts. By 1973, when their cause spilled over to murderous terrorism, the Turks were finally forced to speak up. Therefore, any "response" was on the part of the Turks; once again, Armenian and Greeks act, and the Turks react. If Armenians began to bribe, sweet-talk or coerce biased, ignorant politicians in foreign nations, that was the natural next step, once their terrorists brought the genocide business into the forefront.)

Those who hoped that in Turkey the Armenian question would become the subject of scholarly discourse rather than of political proclamations were encouraged by the announcement that a conference on "Ottoman Armenians in the Period of the Empire's Collapse," sponsored by three Turkish universities, was to be held in Istanbul on May 25–27, 2005. An interdisciplinary meeting of Turkish scholars, this was to be the first open and critical discussion of the Armenian question to be held in Turkey.

Perhaps his fact-disrespecting wife has begun to compromise the man's scholarly head. We've just seen, with the penultimate link above, that this was far from the "first" discussion held in Turkey. The ones involved were not "scholars" either... not if we define a scholar as one who considers all the facts before arriving at a dispassionate conclusion, instead of arriving at the conclusion first, backing it up with tainted "evidence." (Like Anderson's Blue Book, for example.) He goes on to tell us that the event was criticized — rightly — as a "dagger in the back of the Turkish nation." That is exactly what it was. The affair was a closed door meeting of the genocide club, where even the attendees were screened to be of like mind. This was no "critical discussion," but a "preaching to the choir."

I thought it was the organizers (from what I had read in a genocide publication at the time these events were taking place), and not the "rector of Bosphorus University" (as Sheehan tells us. Where did he get that from?) who cancelled this show. If the organizers were fearful for their safety, they could have easily hired extra security. What most likely happened was that the club members cancelled the event, so that the outside world may perceive the Turkish government in its familiar role of monster. In any event, the show went on without a hitch (at Bilgi University) just a few short months later, and as key organizer Fatma Muge Gocek told it in an interview, the toadying Turkish government almost begged for the darned thing to be rescheduled. Here is a closer look at the episode.

Sheehan winds up with his having been asked to pen a letter  to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Sheehan's Letter

He begins (the letter may be accessed here):

As I am sure you are aware, this conference was to bring together Turkish scholars from several disciplines in order to discuss the fate of the Armenian minority in the last years of the Ottoman Empire.

The fact is, the "scholars" who were Turks or with Turkish-sounding names were only of one discipline. For example, Professor Turkkaya Ataov, an "elder statesman" among historians known years for his "Armenian" work, wanted to attend, but the door was slammed shut in his face. Can Prof. Sheehan cite one example of a "Turkish scholar" scheduled to attend (or attended at the successor conference at Bilgi) who disagreed with genocide industry views? He is welcome to try, but I know he cannot. Why is he engaging in the above falsehood? Doesn't he believe in individual research, and to ask questions, like a real scholar? Or is he simply content to be spoon-fed with all of this propagandistic information?

Sheehan continues:

The American Historical Association is the leading organization of historians in the United States, with over 13,000 members, including a number of prominent scholars interested in Turkish and Ottoman history. Needless to say, the Association does not have a position on the fate of the Armenians, but it is deeply committed to free and open inquiry about historical issues, and especially about those issues that have been charged with political and ideological animosities. The May Conference was to have been a forum in which a variety of voices could have been heard. It is a grave misfortune, both for Turkey and for the world of historical scholarship, that political pressures silenced these voices.

As we have seen, he is dead wrong in stating that this was "
to have been a forum in which a variety of voices could have been heard." If only he were more inquisitive, he would have discovered this was an exclusive party for propagandists. As a genuine historian, Sheehan's duty would have been to ridicule such a get-together. (But I think he was genuinely unaware. And that doesn't speak highly of his scholarly chops.)

Now the reader can begin to see that James J. Sheehan is no ordinary historian. Here is the way he signed the letter, following his name:

American Historical Association

That's right, ladies and gentlemen! Sheehan represents the creme de la creme of American historians!

Is that true, "the Association does not have a position on the fate of the Armenians"? I'm not so sure. Not when the President of the Association is a willing accomplice for Armenian propagandists, accepting many of their claims at face value.

This is highly depressing, that pro-Armenian propagandists have succeeded so wildly that they now have the American Historical Association as their willing accomplices. The real historians in this bunch are the last resort... the last hope... to fight against the propagandists. Yet. it's clear that many of the would-be historians within this organization have become propagandists themselves.

ADDENDUM, Jan. 2007
 A Closer Look at Anderson's Scholarship

"Turks were (not) civilized people, for good reason."

Prof. Anderson must have been making good effort in her newfound "Armenian genocide" specialty in order to have been interviewed by Khatchig Mouradian on Nov. 16, 2006, featured in one of the many Armenian-friendly sites, zmag. Entitled "Germany and the Armenian Genocide," Prof. Anderson makes insightful comments at times, impressively having studied details of the story. Unfortunately, she stresses one side of the story, and relies heavily upon propaganda. As one example, for her, Lepsius is on the up and up, but Ernst Jäckh becomes the "worst person in Germany, as far as the Armenians were concerned." One doesn't need to read between the lines to figure Prof. Anderson nears the Armenians regarding that opinion, since Jäckh regarded the Turks as valid human beings, and Jäckh had the audacity to tell the truth.

While the accent of the interview is on "German responsibility in the Armenian Genocide," what serves as interest here are the giveaways of Prof. Anderson's extreme partisanship. She reveals off the bat that "Stephan Astourian, a specialist in Armenian history, without whom I could never have begun this. He was immediately helpful in steering me to the proper Armenian sources and letting me understand the historiography." The fact that Prof. Anderson gave such credence to "proper Armenian sources" is most revealing as far as her scholarly credibility, since Armenians, by and large, practice the Dashnak "end justifies the means" credo in their blind service to Hai Tahd, the Armenian Cause. In short, "proper Armenian sources" are a most rare commodity. (As most becoming familiar with this penchant for dishonesty, regarding "genocide" matters, come to realize. For example, a Reuters correspondent who got to know the ways of the Armenians had to warn, all the way back in 1895: "(Atrocity claims)
must be established independently of Armenian testimony, or their value may be seriously questioned.")

She begins by minimizing Lepsius' efforts of distorting the evidence as "They do not bear significantly on the question of the Genocide’s character," and even questions whether it was Lepsius himself who performed the omissions. (Anything is possible, but chances are, who else but Lepsius would have been in charge of his own work? In the preface to his book, he accepted total responsibility for the book's contents. A protective Anderson, by the way, refers to "omissions," but not the forgeries of Lepsius' book. Some pro-Armenians have blamed tinkerings on the German Foreign Office, but that would mean Dr. Lepsius
who claimed complete independence of the German Foreign Office and complete freedom in his selection of the documents was a complete dodo.) She then speculates, to her credit, that Lepsius was trying to protect Armenians, covering up cases of Armenian revolutionary violence. Yet she does so with a heavy heart, quickly adding, "the national school of Turkish historians will be quick to jump on this."

Any true historian who dutifully analyzes all of the facts would not need to "jump" on her speculation. An objective person is already well aware that the missionary Lepsius, as a bigoted Christian "churchman" (in Anderson's word), is not a source to be trusted. Anderson's explanation as to why Lepsius ignored episodes of when Armenians "struck back" (that is the way she would phrase it, of course; the reality of most Armenian-perpetrated violence had nothing to do with striking back, since Armenians engaged in first strikes): Lepsius was a "churchman," and thus "so disapproved of violence." What kind of nonsense is that? If Lepsius had an aversion to violence to the point where he could not write about it, why did he go out of his way to repeat
at times with perverse delight the violent horror stories with Turks brandishing the swords? (In 1900, Sir Charles Eliot wrote, as "Odysseus" in "Turkey and Europe," that these stories were "largely the invention of morbid and somewhat prurient brains"; not uncommonly, sexually repressed "churchmen" were at the forefront of spreading such horrible tales.)

What Lepsius lacked was the moral fiber to treat people as equals, regardless of religious affiliation, the way Jesus Christ would have wanted him to. If Lepsius purposely covered up Armenian crimes in order to  present "a picture of almost complete Armenian victimhood," as Anderson herself is aware (while curiously presenting a similar picture herself), then what greater proof do we need that Lepsius was a phony baloney, and any "scholar" who gives credence to his claims is a rank amateur at best?

"And he was also trying to protect Armenians against what he had long known was the false charge of the German Turkophiles: that the Armenians were terrorists, that the “deportations” were a security measure against traitors, and that the CUP [Committee of Union and Progress] was only protecting the Ottoman state."

Look at the sheer, Lepsius-like bigotry of this woman. Why in heaven's name would there have been a good number of German "Turkophiles," when Germans were raised with the image of the Terrible Turkish bogeyman, the same as all Christian European nations? What Anderson is engaging in is a Dadrian-style character attack, classifying those who knew the truth as people who were so in love with Turks, they would turn a blind eye to Turkish crimes, in the same vein as the biased Lepsius. What these "Turkophiles" were guilty of was daring to give Turks a fair shake. That does not make one a "lover" of Turks. The reasons why genocide advocates are quick to label such honorable people as "Turkophiles" are twofold: one is an attempt to discredit such people and to dismiss their views in an underhanded attempt to stifle debate, and secondly
one must believe because genocide advocates can't accept there were people who actually believed Turkish people also had the right to be considered as human beings, not worth less than cherished Christian Armenians.

And Prof. Anderson displays her lack of scholarly credibility in enormous fashion, by siding with Lepsius. Is the charge that Armenians were terrorists a "false" one? Is Anderson out of her mind? There is a wealth of Armenian-friendly sources from missionaries (such as the Reverends Dwight and Barton) to even a few Armenian historians (such as Louise Nalbandian) corroborating the thirty-odd year terror spree of the Dashnaks and Hunchaks, either coercing their fellow Armenians or in poisoning their minds, allowing nearly the entire community to turn traitor against their Ottoman nation. (As Leon Surmelian, for example, correctly depicted.) The "deportations" were certainly a security measure against those "Armenians (who) fought by the side of the Allies on all fronts" and were "belligerents de facto," as Boghos Nubar admitted; in short, "traitors." When one deals with traitors who are fighting on the side of the invading enemy (Anderson the propagandist tells us "the Armenians struck back when they could," when it was the Armenians who fired the first shot and it was the Ottomans who struck back), it becomes the duty of any government to keep the peace and subdue the rebels, as even the Armenian historian Borian tells us. Of course the CUP was "protecting the Ottoman state."

(Not that we need Borian to tell us that, because the necessity of such self-defense on the part of a nation is obvious. The difference is, the Ottoman Turks endured a half-year of Armenian treachery after war was declared, as at war's outset and at Sarikamish, before reluctantly deciding upon the relocation policy, the first real sign of which was May 2, 1915. This was in opposition with how other nations usually conduct themselves, targeting suspicious minorities before they have had a chance to become treacherous, as with the USA and Canada vs. their innocent Japanese during WWII, and as with Britain vs. their innocent German men in 1914 WWI, where many of the latter were truly "deported," i.e. banished outside the country's borders.)

Those who enlist propagandistic sources, such as Lepsius, to tell history become propagandists in turn.

Anderson goes on to tell us Germany wooed the Armenians (in 1913-14), so that when the inevitable dissolution of the Ottoman Empire took place, Germany would have a friend. This is interesting, because it partly explains why so many Germans were pro-Armenian during the war years (Germans already had a built-in bias toward the Armenians as fellow Christians to begin with.) Germany had usually gone against the other powers in support of the Ottomans, serving as a check, but in 1914, Anderson tells us, Germany played a strong hand in forcing the Ottomans to sign the deadly "inspectorate" deal, which would not have simply granted "the Armenians in Eastern Anatolia a certain parity in public offices with the Muslim population there, and thus a kind of regional autonomy," as Anderson innocently explains, but would serve (since Russia would come in, and Ottoman governmental control would totally disappear) as the fatal step in ultimately removing these lands from Ottoman ownership; not far from what had happened in the Balkans, Crete and Lebanon.

Anderson next tells us the "elites" of German society were aware of the "
extermination of the Armenians," such as professors, journalists, clergymen, the Deutsche Bank head and "important members of the Reichstag, such as the later winner of the Nobel Peace Price, the liberal Gustav Stresemann" (as if winning the Nobel Peace Prize would have made Stresemann a historical authority). How did these people know... since none of them were at the scene? Why, they knew because Armenians and missionaries like Lepsius told them.

"Lepsius gave an interview on the 5th of October, 1915, to a group of newspapermen in Berlin, to tell them what he had learned on his recent trip to Constantinople/Istanbul from late July to early August," Anderson tells us, but neglects the fact that Lepsius was not allowed to travel outside of Istanbul. (Not that it would have made a difference in reportage, since Lepsius had an agenda; but the point is, he did not witness anything firsthand.) So how did Lepsius know what he knew? Because Armenians and missionaries told him. (In addition to anything else Lepsius felt free to "expand upon.")

"There was so much self-censorship (in the German press) that the government didn’t have to intervene," Anderson tells us, relying in large part upon an Armenian-German's study of one Berlin newspaper (the Berliner Tageblatt), which published only five Armenian-related stories during 1915, all "pro-Turkish." (Does the reader get the feeling Prof. Anderson's heart was sinking, since the newspaper fell short of the New York Times' 145 hearsay-ridden articles for that year?
Click Here for Pic)

Of course if the Ottoman Empire was allied with Germany it would have served Germany's purpose to keep a lid on further demonization of the Turks. But here is the trouble when a propagandist-scholar relies only on selective biased sources for an agenda-serving version of events. As the war continued, Christian bigotry grew strong in Germany, needled as the German people were by those such as Lepsius, whose accounts did get through from time to time. (Particularly once word filtered through from the foreign journals, as in Basel and Zurich, which had no problem with publishing Lepsius' propaganda.) As war correspondent George Schreiner related (Schreiner was the only American newspaperman who travelled into the Ottoman interior in 1915, according to co-editor Jay Winter's propagandistic book, America and the Armenian Genocide of 1915, and a reliable eyewitness who viewed these events firsthand. He knew there was no "genocide"), his own nation's censors didn't allow Schreiner's truth to get out to the press of the Allied nations and their supporters. (Remember, Britain had cut the cable from Germany; nations like the USA only got the propagandistic Allied view, mainly controlled by Wellington House.) Frustrated, Schreiner tried to get his accounts published in the German press. They refused him, as
"The religious societies of Germany had finally... prevailed."

In other words, Anderson was correct when she told us "There was so much (press) self-censorship," but not always in the way she intended.

Anderson next tells us that she sees Lepsius "as a hero," which speaks volumes. (Dr. Lepsius was, after all, a scholar after Anderson's own heart, as Frank G. Weber summed up in his Eagles on the Crescent: "Not Objective.")

Why a hero? Because "He didn’t pay attention only to what was best for Germany." That's true. Lepsius's first master was his "duty to God," which gave him license to vilify people who did not make the grade as fellow Christians. One wonders whether Anderson would also view C. F. Dixon-Johnson "as a hero," since the Boer War veteran also "didn’t pay attention only to what was best for" England. Dixon-Johnson's first master was his "duty to the truth." But we already know what a partisan propagandist would say of Dixon-Johnson don't we? Dixon-Johnson would go straight into the ranks of the mindless "Turkophiles."

Later in the interview, Anderson will go on to characterize Bronsart von Schellendorf as the "worst" German soldier, without explaining why. Could Bronsart von Schellendorf have also been a "Turkophile"? Or did Anderson simply not care for Bronsart von Schellendorf's powerful 1921 article, prepared solely for the purpose of, as he put it, helping "truth find its rightful place." (What other reason could have possibly motivated the German officer to have written such an article, well after the war drums had fallen silent? Incidentally, in the same paragraph, Anderson contends "German soldiers in the Ottoman Empire were not part of the German Army but were all under Ottoman command." That might have been true on paper, but does anyone believe the typically arrogant Germans would have permitted themselves to get pushed around by such second-class "human race" citizens they were largely in contempt of?)

(For example, Anderson will later tell us that "Field Marshall Liman von Sanders saved the Armenians in Edirne and Izmir." There is more to this story than the singular source genocide proponents point to
which would generally be von Sanders himself, along with his interviewer, Lepsius and is deserving of deeper study. But if Liman truly deserved the credit, then what kind of "being under Ottoman command" is that? Furthermore, since Liman was the Ottoman military's German top dog, if he was so outraged over the idea of "deportations," why would he have not gone out of his way to put his foot down in other instances?)

(We'll take a small detour, here. In his 1921 Berlin trial testimony as witness for the defense of Talat's assassin, Liman accepts the Ottomans' relocation order as "a strategic military move." He says, however, that German officers intervened whenever they could, and often ignored orders... certainly going against the essence of "being under Ottoman command." He takes the credit for putting a stop to "deportations" from Adrianople [Edirne], by paying a visit to Istanbul with other officials. [It appears the Turks could be reasonable and civilized after all, despite what Anderson will go on to later assert.] He also claims that he stopped the "deportation" of 600 Armenians in Izmir, threatening to kill the Turkish gendarmes, which Lepsius had cited in his book. Now let's pause for a second. I don't have the statistics for the number of Armenians in 1915 Izmir [a Turkish source for 1918 put the number at 10,000], but if everything else is true, claiming that Liman stopped the "Smyrna deportation" would be misleading... as we don't know how extensive that "deportation" would have been. [There were plenty of cities/villages where only a smattering of Armenians were affected.] If anything, the general made a difference with only 6% of Izmir's Armenian population (ADDENDUM: A British writer cites 20,000 in the year 1914, which would bring the percentage down to 3%), and it serves to reason that as soon as Liman looked the other way, busying himself with affairs of war, the governor could have sneaked out the Armenians, if he were of the mind to do so. One must always dig deep to get at the heart of a matter, particularly if one calls oneself a "scholar.")

(ADDENDUM, 2-07: As related in The Ottoman Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide, Lewy, pp. 204-05, the Armenian population was 13,000. The vali, Rahmi Bey, was moderate and opposed to relocations. [Inside Constantinople, Einstein, p. 286.] In Aug. 1915, the execution of seven Armenians, for a 1909 offense, was reduced to fifteen years' imprisonment, when Morgenthau persuaded Enver. 2,500 Armenians were arrested in November following the appearance of pro-Allied leaflets, but most were freed later. A whole year passed with nothing happening to Izmir Armenians, when on Nov. 1916, upon finding outdated bombs/weapons, 300 Armenians were arrested and subjected to "deportation." This is when von Sanders intervened, stating such measures jeopardized military security. Rahmi Bey told the German that he was opposed to the relocations, Armenians found innocent would be allowed to return, and Rahmi promised there would be no further recurrences, a promise kept until the end of the war. It is important to keep in mind that by November 1916, the "genocide" had, in Dadrian's words, already "all but run its course," and there were likely not to be further episodes anyway. Those who simplistically state von Sanders saved the Izmir Armenians are not being honest.)

 Anderson does raise an interesting question. Lepsius was allowed to travel to Istanbul, and imposed himself upon the busy schedules of Talat and Enver, extracting interviews from the CUP leaders. No doubt Talat and Enver looked down upon the biased missionary, so why did they agree to give him the time of day? Anderson speculates "because the German Foreign Office put pressure on the Turks to receive him. "  Why? Because, Anderson further speculates, Lepsius felt the Armenians could be wooed onto the side of the Central Powers. (If so, was he out of his mind? The brainwashed and Turk-hateful Armenian community would have agreed to go up against the Russians, their "saviors"?)

"...And that if they weren’t rallied behind the German cause—and here was the dangerous corollary—that they could actually hurt the Germans and the Turks in the war. That is, of course, the very excuse the Turkish government uses to justify what happened."

Poor Professor Anderson. Shooting herself in the foot, again and again. She just validated "Turkish propaganda," using the testimony of her very own "hero."

In other words, Lepsius may have been aware of this "excuse" that the Armenians had the potential to be dangerous. The only reason why he didn't want to talk about it openly, as Anderson speculated earlier, was because he hated violence. Brother!

"But I think that in fact Lepsius was trying to exaggerate the military danger of the Armenian revolutionary movement in order to get Germany to pressure the Turks to stop the deportations and massacres."

Very logical. (That is, probably logical in the mind of Lepsius, hoping to save Christians, but let's examine the effect on those he was hoping to convince.) If the military danger of the Armenians was a threat, as German officers in the front lines (such as the "worst," von Schellendorf) were already aware, the Germans would then have to put a halt to the relocation policy (the Ottoman leaders were already attending to curtail the massacres that had occurred, by changing the marching routes, for example), which was a response to the Armenian military danger in the first place.

"But by the time he got to Constantinople, by late July or early August 1915, most Armenians had already been deported, and it was clear to the German government that they had nothing to offer the Germans and posed no military threat to the Turks."

Remember, she was attempting to explain why Lepsius was granted access to the Ottoman leaders. She went in circles, only to shoot herself in the foot once again. If the Armenians were neutralized by the time of Lepsius' visit, what was the reason why doors were opened to him... particularly since Ambassador "Wangenheim said that the Turks don’t want to see Lepsius," as Anderson put it? (What she's not telling us, of course, is that the segment of the Armenian population who would have served as a military threat mostly escaped being "deported." Young Armenian men — such as the assassin Lepsius and Liman von Sanders defended in 1921— had hightailed it either to Russia or the mountains to fight against their nation, along with many of the deserters conscripted into the Ottoman army.)

A more valid theory could be that "the German Foreign Office put pressure on the Turks to receive him," not because Lepsius was crying that the sky might fall, but because
"The religious societies of Germany had finally... prevailed," as Schreiner accurately informed us. (But actually, these forces gained greater power as the war progressed. "The Armenian File" much more sensibly tells us "Lepsius convinced the Wilhelmstrasse that his intention was not to put pressure on the Turks but instead to argue the patriarchal entourage into greater loyalty toward the Ottoman regime," and to Amb. Wangenheim, "the liquidation of the Armenians would seriously and perhaps irreparably diminish the prospects of Germany’s ascendancy in Turkey after the war.")

Lepsius is quoted as having justified the Armenians' importance by stating “One cannot treat a nation of four million as a quantité négligeable,” half in Russia and the other half in "Turkey." Goes to show what a reliable disseminator of information Lepsius was. The worldwide Armenian population of the period was around three million, not four. Four million is what Armenian propagandists such as Pastermadjian claimed, and still claim. The Ottoman Empire had the largest Armenian population, at the median "neutral" consensus of 1.5 million, 1.7 million tops. (Toynbee, before hooking up with Wellington House, thought around a million, in 1915.)

Lepsius, at the Berlin trial of Talat's assassin in 1921, provided testimony that the Armenian Patriarch had told him the Ottoman-Armenian population was 1.85 million. (1,845,400 was the precise figure Lepsius provided in his book's intro.) This was a far cry from the Patriarch's official figure of 2.1 million, the figure propagandists prefer. So we have corroborated two things. Lepsius attained his information from highly unreliable and propagandistic sources, such as the Armenian Patriarch. But because Lepsius was a shameless propagandist himself, he took the propaganda information (1.85 million in this case) and put a further spin on it (2 million). The second thing we have corroborated is that Lepsius was a liar, and academics who still think of this liar as a "hero" had better try to salvage what may be left of their scholarly credibility.

To further confirm Lepsius' aversion to truth, Anderson next quotes the churchman as having said, "...One half, the Russian half, is constantly courted and flattered, while the other, the Turkish half, faces only oppression." In point of fact, the Ottoman Armenians had it much better than the Russian-Armenians. In their campaign to spread the seeds of hatred, the Dashnaks/Hunchaks craftily told ignorant Ottoman-Armenians life would be much better for them on the border's other side, and many who were thus suckered later tried to return to where the going was good. Even the Turk-hating fellow churchman, Cyrus Hamlin wrote (regarding his 1890s conversation with a Hunchak terrorist):

'But your people do not want Russian protection. They prefer Turkey, bad as she is. There are hundreds of miles of conterminous territory into which emigration is easy at all times. It has been so for all the centuries of the Moslem rule. If your people preferred the Russian Government there would not be now an Armenian family in Turkey.'

Anderson's "hero" also accused Abdul Hamid of having conducted an "extermination policy" against the Armenian people. How moral is that, to make such ruinous charges without factual evidence? Particularly from a "churchman," who should have taken pains to observe the Ninth Commandment. (The one prohibiting false witness against one's neighbor. Perhaps Lepsius would have preferred to go against Christ's teachings and to have used the loophole, arguing a sub-human like a Turk would not constitute a "neighbor.") When Armenians rebelled, it was the sultan's duty to put down these rebellions. Sometimes innocents got caught in the fray. But the bigoted Christian West was mindlessly engaged in what the Armenian apologist, Richard Davey, called the "great Armenian horrors' boom all over the western world and America too," and this right of self-defense that any nation would claim would constantly be presented in the western press as "massacres"... since different rules apply to "lesser" peoples. (Writing in 1894, Davey also served as character witness for the alleged "exterminator": "the Sultan is so free from the spirit of cruelty which disgraced some of his ancestors, that it is difficult to get him to sign even the death-warrant of a murderer. He invariably commutes the sentence to imprisonment. He has much to contend with.")

Lepsius' Truth

Based on Major Cyprian Bridges' review of Lepsius' "Deutschland und Armenien," Foreign Affairs, July 1920; we're told Lepsius was permitted access to all the documents in the Berlin Foreign Office relating to Armenians, published "in chronological order and omitting none." (Sort of like when the British were permitted access to all Armenian-related documents of the U.S. State Department in 1921, desperately seeking evidence to convict the Turks imprisoned in Malta. The difference between the British and Lepsius was that the British knew propaganda when they saw it, and rejected every single word. Lepsius' agenda, in contrast, was to promote propaganda.)

1) "The Turkish Government from first to last. covertly encouraged, even if it did not actually instigate, first, the deportations and subsequently the massacres of Armenians." DID NOT INSTIGATE! In the reviewer's words, even Lepsius was telling us the Turks had no "intent"; no intent, no genocide.

2) Yet suddenly a genocide will be made of this non-genocide: "All the German and other reports point to Enver Pashe as the chief instigator of these horrors, and practically place it beyond doubt that the Young Turks had decided upon a policy of extermination, not only in respect of the Armenians but of all Christians in Turkey." Is that not a contradiction, to have decided upon a policy of extermination (which is "practically" beyond doubt, the translation of which is no real proof), without actually having instigated it? In addition, if Enver was the Hitler here, why did Lepsius, under oath, support the notion that it was really Talat, while serving as witness for the 1921 defense of Talat's assassin? Lastly, if the idea was to exterminate all the other Christians, why didn't (for example) the Greeks get marched into the "desert"?

3) "Approximately one million Armenians fell victims to this policy in Turkey and at least 50,000 in Caucasia." The Turks could barely defend eastern Anatolia, and they should be blamed for Armenian losses in Caucasia, territory they did not control? And we already covered the fallacy of the "one million" Armenians; adding to that, Boghos Nubar himself vouched for 600,000-700,000 as the number for the "deported" (in a Dec. 11, 1918 letter), and U.S. Consul Jesse Jackson vouched for 486,000 as "the number of Armenian immigrants" alive in 1916, when the genocide had all but run its course, in Vahakn Dadrian's words..

4) To Lepsius's credit, he allowed for Djelal Bey (Aleppo's vali) and Jemal Pasha to be let off the hook as genocide culprits. Dadrian's favored 1919-20 kangaroo courts sentenced Jemal to death, which demonstrates why even the British rejected the findings of these illegal courts.

5) "Consul Rössler... was accused in the British House of Lords and in the Allied press of having personally directed the massacre at Aintab and elsewhere." Given how madly pro-Armenian Rössler was, just goes to how reliable Allied assessments were.

6) Fittingly, Lepsius was forced to defend two of his "zealous and trusted co-workers in Armenia during twenty years," one of whom (Eckart) was condemned in "an Armenian newspaper founded upon another statement made by two ladies, one of them an Englishwoman, who when passing through Aleppo were told (the dirt) by two Armenians..." In other words, hearsay deriving from hearsay. This was published in a 1916 British Blue Book, a source that Anderson recommends to her students as valid history.

The biased British reviewer (who no doubt thought himself to have what he called an "unprejudiced mind" of others who would have no choice but to confirm the Turks' guilt) further wrote that "Considerations of space preclude a discussion of the Turkish counter-allegations against the Armenians," as he had already made up his mind that "most... are shown to be at the best gross exaggerations, while many of them were contradicted by the German consuls." He sounded troubled to report that a consul had confirmed "apparently truthfully" that "5,000 Armenians (near Antioch), including 500 men of military age, embarked in transports covered by gunfire from an enemy warship." Major Bridges further wrote that "The Turks also assert that when the Russians withdrew from Erzerum in January, 1918, the Armenians, led by French officers, attempted to hold the place against the Turks and were guilty of wholesale massacres of Mahometans."

Wholesale massacres by Armenians are a matter of record, and they started years before 1918. While the French officers part is interesting (the French Armenian Legion had already been formed, so there may have been something to it), testimony of Russian officers are all that is necessary to confirm this truth (such as that of Lieutenant Abgral, Commander of the Russian Forces at Erzurum). What we can be assured of is that Lepsius had several agendas; one was to "God," in showing the Turkish infidels as monsters, and the other was to his country, to let the Germans off the genocide hook. (Bridges' concluding sentence included that Lepsius "clears his own fellow-country-men of any responsibility.") Such a dishonest man as Lepsius could not have been expected to include every single Armenian-related German document without "omitting none," but unfortunately, Armenian-concerned researchers who have rummaged through the German archives through the years must have almost exclusively been dishonest genocide advocates. (The few contra-genocide scholars who have taken the trouble to investigate foreign archives would not normally allow Germany's to be the first choice, because Germans writing in favor of their Turkish allies would be accused of bias. However, it was the researchers not from the contra-genocide camp [probably scholars focusing not on genocide but on the war] who exposed the abridgements and forgeries in Lepsius's version of the 444 documents included in his book.)

Anderson continues:

"It is not only now that Turkey tries to deny what happened. Even then the CUP tried to keep everything absolutely secret in order to maintain 'deniability' at all times."


"On the 16th of July, 1915, the U.S. Ambassador to Constantinople, Henry Morgenthau, wrote to the American State Department that 'a campaign of race extermination is in progress,' yet he recommended against any protest."

Yes, Morgenthau, like Lepsius, was entirely influenced by Armenians (his English-speaking assistants in particular) and missionaries since Morgenthau, like Lepsius, never travelled into the interior to see things for himself. Along with his racial prejudice and high and mighty ways, Morgenthau allowed himself to send inflammatory and inaccurate messages as the above to the home office. In earlier months, Morgenthau sent reports indicating his awareness of the weakness of the central government (allowing for locals to ignore orders to protect Armenians, and to surely make it difficult to implement a "Final Solution" policy) and of the Armenian revolts. In the coming months, Morgenthau would pursue his own agenda, likely influenced by his Zionist feelings. (He was very close to the politically pro-Armenian Rabbi Stephen Wise, in anticipation of knocking the Ottomans out, and paving the way for a Jewish homeland.) One reason why Morgenthau's diplomatic career had ended in Jan. 1916, when he left his post, was because he was regarded as a loose cannon by the U.S. government. Yet here, Anderson tries to paint a picture of Morgenthau as a responsible employee of the U.S. government. One does not share confidential information with those such as Lepsius and Lord Bryce, as Morgenthau did, if Morgenthau's priority was to represent his country, which was supposed to be "neutral." (Morgenthau did receive authorization from his boss, Lansing, but the ambassador stretched this permission
which called for Morgenthau's "discretion" to the limit by giving Lepsius open access to his Embassy's files and copies of their contents.)

I'd like to learn where Morgenthau "recommended against protest." Perhaps he did in private communications (I didn't get that idea from the ones I've read, deeper into 1915), but that only goes to show what an unreliable character he was, since the very essence of "Ambassador Morgenthau's Story" was "protest." Anderson's interviewer asks why Morgenthau could have been so level-headed, even to the extent of suggesting that the missionary groups keep a lid on their emotions as well:

"Well, don't forget that when diplomatic pressure was brought to bear upon Abdul Hamid in 1896, he responded by massacring the Armenians in Istanbul/Constantinople. People like Morgenthau did not think the Turks were civilized people, for good reason. I’m not saying there weren’t any civilized Turks in the Ottoman Empire, but Turks and Kurds had already behaved so horribly in the 1890s, that some people didn’t think the Ottoman government would respond to something like the pressure of European and American public opinion. Morgenthau didn’t. Noting that even men like Morgenthau believed this, I think, gives a little bit of respectability to other people—like the pope—who believed, however mistakenly, that you could get more accomplished for the Armenians by working behind the scenes to convince Turks to do this or that."

Zowie! What are we going to do with Professor Margaret Lavinia Anderson?

"Successive British governments published the parliamentary papers (the Blue Books) which have been raked through ever since for evidence against the sultan. It is not there. There is hearsay and the whisperings of diplomats in Istanbul who had good reason to cover their own tracks but there is nothing that links Abdulhamit to a policy of massacre."

Jeremy Salt, "The Narrative Gap in Ottoman Armenian history," Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 39, No.1, Jan 2003, pp. 25-26

First, she's dumbly telling us Abdul Hamid was behind the 1896 "massacre" of Armenians in Istanbul. She must have been referring to the aftermath of the Dashnak takeover of the Ottoman Bank, where organixzed Armenian terrorists were throwing their bombs ("...[T]hey did not kill instantly, but tore their flesh apart, and made them writhe with pain and agony." Hayik Tiryakian, as quoted in Vartanian's History of Dashnakstuin, pp. 160-3) on the populace from rooftops all over town... in hopes of provoking massacres, to get the Europeans in. (The other major outbreak of Armenian-instigated violence in Istanbul was the Babiali Demonstration, taking place the previous year.) Here is Kamuran Gurun on the aftermath of the bank matter, from "The Armenian File":

According to Western sources, the number of Armenians killed as a result of this incident was between 4,000 and 6,000. A document concerning this subject has not yet been found in the Ottoman archives. However, in our opinion, the figure 6,000 is exaggerated. In the case of the Babiali demonstration, too, the disorders continued for a few days, but the number of dead did not exceed 172. To be able to reach the figure 4,000-6,000, the incident had to last for weeks. Moreover, it is written in all the sources that the Muslims fought with sticks and knives, and it is hardly possible to kill so many people with these means. We have nowhere encountered the number of Muslims killed. But according to the British document, 120 soldiers of the Grand Vizier were killed, and there were approximately 25 wounded. (111) Again in the same document it is stated that about 300 Muslims were arrested because of the incidents, and that the preventive measures taken by the Government were satisfactory. A special court was established for this incident, and the Muslims and the Armenians who were arrested were tried in this court.

(Footnote 111: F.O. 424/188, No. 190, enclosure 1. Holdwater note: Prof. Erich Feigl, from "A Myth of Terror," added: "...it was now possible to dream up tales of '4000-6000 Armenians killed in the rioting;. Not the least bit of evidence could be found to support these figures in the secret report of the British Embassy (F. 0. 424/188, Nos. 149 and 169). But what difference did that make?")

More Western insight on the aftermath may be read of here, where we are informed,
"The soldiers and police took no part in the killing," further distancing Abdul Hamid from involvement.

This was a period of great danger for the "Sick Man of Europe," and in reality, Abdul Hamid was worried sick over giving the European imperialists a reason to come in and take the spoils of his ailing empire. This is mainly why he often allowed for Dashnak terrorists to freely walk away (or to give them light sentences), time and again. Exactly in opposition to Anderson's uneducated claim, that "the Ottoman government would (not) respond to something like the pressure of European and American public opinion," the Ottoman government was totally beholden to European diplomatic pressure, backed up by their military threats and the fact that the "Sick Man" was nearly a European colony by this point, what with the Capitulations and foreigners' immunity from Ottoman law. (It is true the Ottomans would not have respected the public opinion of these nations, since public opinion was based on biased and dishonest reportage... no different than these days. But they certainly could not ignore the hostility resulting from Christian bigotry. The Ottomans' trap was, the more they provided reforms, the freer the Armenians became to practice their mischief.)

Yet Anderson is irresponsibly telling us Abdul Hamid actually ordered the violence resulting from Armenian provocation. She's not offering proof. What can be done with such an unprofessional, pseudo-scholar?

Note Anderson does not mention the cause of this riot: the Dashnak Armenian terrorists. (Remember, in her world, as we have read above, the fact of Armenian terrorists must be considered a "false charge.") No, the reason she presents for Abdul Hamid's alleged massacre order was that he had a fit over diplomatic pressure.

Absolutely irresponsible.

Of course, it's easy for Anderson to believe a Turk like Abdul Hamid would have flipped out, because "Turks were (not) civilized people, for good reason." She tries to soften her horrible assertion by adding "I’m not saying there weren’t any civilized Turks" (possibly in the same disingenuous manner as Armenians approving of Armenian terrorism of the 1970s-80s by making sure to add that they did not condone terrorism), yet goes on to validate the Turks' half-human nature by adding that they "had already behaved so horribly in the 1890s," they would not be capable of listening to reason.

Ugly. A university would be up in arms if a professor resorted to Ku Klux Klan literature in presenting a depiction of Jews and blacks. Yet someone such as Anderson gets away with her blatant racism, because she is against "genocide" and for "human rights."

She doesn't care that Armenians and Turks co-existed with relative harmony for centuries, and that Armenians were allowed to prosper to the extent of being, to a degree, the masters of Ottoman society. She doesn't want to know that the sudden violence of the 1890s happened to coincide with the creation of the Armenian terror groups. Moreover, she doesn't give a darn about the thousands of Turks the Armenians killed during the 1890s (any more than she cares about the some 500,000 the Armenians and some Russians killed during their times of control of eastern Anatolia, 1915-1920), because these people don't even rate as human beings. Turks are simply not civilized people, for good reason!

She finishes her above statement by giving credit to men like the pope and... Morgenthau??... for harboring hopes to get these Turks to start behaving like human beings. However, she then slips in that these naive men were mistaken in their beliefs. In short, Turks are simply beyond hope. They are just not civilized people, for good reason!

She has more dunderheaded things to say in the rest of the interview (such as: "A colleague of mine who teaches Turkish history in the United States [let us not give his name because I don’t think he could visit his family in Turkey if his name is published] told me that he has no doubt that there was a Genocide"; in other words
aside from the fact that this fellow is offering a mere opinion based on propaganda and no hard evidence; there are now plenty of opportunistic Turks having jumped on the popular and profitable genocide bandwagon genocide advocating Turks like Taner Akcam and Fatma Muge Gocek can never hope to go back to Turkey, fearing for their lives as they must, because Turks are not civilized people, for good reason), but frankly I have had enough of the propagandistic professings of one Professor Margaret Lavinia Anderson.




"West" Accounts


Armenian Views


Turks in Movies
Turks in TV


This Site

...Is to expose the mythological “Armenian genocide,” from the years 1915-16. A wartime tragedy involving the losses of so many has been turned into a politicized story of “exclusive victimhood,” and because of the prevailing prejudice against Turks, along with Turkish indifference, those in the world, particularly in the West, have been quick to accept these terribly defamatory claims involving the worst crime against humanity. Few stop to investigate below the surface that those regarded as the innocent victims, the Armenians, while seeking to establish an independent state, have been the ones to commit systematic ethnic cleansing against those who did not fit into their racial/religious ideal: Muslims, Jews, and even fellow Armenians who had converted to Islam. Criminals as Dro, Antranik, Keri, Armen Garo and Soghoman Tehlirian (the assassin of Talat Pasha, one of the three Young Turk leaders, along with Enver and Jemal) contributed toward the deaths (via massacres, atrocities, and forced deportation) of countless innocents, numbering over half a million. What determines genocide is not the number of casualties or the cruelty of the persecutions, but the intent to destroy a group, the members of which  are guilty of nothing beyond being members of that group. The Armenians suffered their fate of resettlement not for their ethnicity, having co-existed and prospered in the Ottoman Empire for centuries, but because they rebelled against their dying Ottoman nation during WWI (World War I); a rebellion that even their leaders of the period, such as Boghos Nubar and Hovhannes Katchaznouni, have admitted. Yet the hypocritical world rarely bothers to look beneath the surface, not only because of anti-Turkish prejudice, but because of Armenian wealth and intimidation tactics. As a result, these libelous lies, sometimes belonging in the category of “genocide studies,” have become part of the school curricula of many regions. Armenian scholars such as Vahakn Dadrian, Peter Balakian, Richard Hovannisian, Dennis Papazian and Levon Marashlian have been known to dishonestly present only one side of their story, as long as their genocide becomes affirmed. They have enlisted the help of "genocide scholars," such as Roger Smith, Robert Melson, Samantha Power, and Israel Charny… and particularly  those of Turkish extraction, such as Taner Akcam and Fatma Muge Gocek, who justify their alliance with those who actively work to harm the interests of their native country, with the claim that such efforts will help make Turkey more" democratic." On the other side of this coin are genuine scholars who consider all the relevant data, as true scholars have a duty to do, such as Justin McCarthy, Bernard Lewis, Heath Lowry, Erich Feigl and Guenter Lewy. The unscrupulous genocide industry, not having the facts on its side, makes a practice of attacking the messenger instead of the message, vilifying these professors as “deniers” and "agents of the Turkish government." The truth means so little to the pro-genocide believers, some even resort to the forgeries of the Naim-Andonian telegrams or sources  based on false evidence, as Franz Werfel’s The Forty Days of Musa Dagh. Naturally, there is no end to the hearsay "evidence" of the prejudiced pro-Christian people from the period, including missionaries and Near East Relief representatives, Arnold Toynbee, Lord Bryce, Lloyd George, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, and so many others. When the rare Westerner opted to look at the issues objectively, such as Admirals Mark Bristol and Colby Chester, they were quick to be branded as “Turcophiles” by the propagandists. The sad thing is, even those who don’t consider themselves as bigots are quick to accept the deceptive claims of Armenian propaganda, because deep down people feel the Turks are natural killers and during times when Turks were victims, they do not rate as equal and deserving human beings. This is the main reason why the myth of this genocide has become the common wisdom.