Is there an end to Armenian (and Greek) apologists of
Non-Armenian (and non-Greek) origin? After the many, many years of relentless,
anti-Turkish propaganda, how could there be?
One can almost understand the irrational and fanatical
demons that drive too many Armenians (and Greeks), but for non-Armenians to
outdo Armenians themselves... that is so very mind-boggling; the readiness
with which they so willingly and simplistically narrow the matter down to
white hats and black hats.
On this page, I wanted to highlight a few of these
prejudiced folks who only happened to catch my eye. These examples, of course,
only represent the tippiest tip of the iceberg.
A photographer by the name of Rudy Brueggemann
operates a web
site that appears to criticize several different genocides, but I inferred he
had a special love affair with the Armenian "Genocide." He relates, on a
somewhat entertaining page, of a trip to Turkey, going from one site of
"genocidal" note to the next. He gives us a picture of "Midnight
Express," a man on a mission who is very afraid if the Turks should happen to
catch him. (I guess he was afraid he was going to be hung upside-down by that film's
"Bluto," get whacked on the soles of his feet and then be sodomized.) His
aim: "To document historic evidence of the attempted extermination of the
Armenian people in the early 1900s," hopefully telling of "a
little-known story of enormous human evil. At another level, I hoped they would
provide additional evidence against what my Armenian journalist friend called the
'big lie,' or Turkey's denial that Armenians were victims of a government-run,
systematic mass murder." (Ah! He's got an Armenian tale whose version of
events he has totally accepted, and he goes on to classify the Armenian
"Genocide" as ... a "little-known story?" Brother, there are
many genocides that are barely spoken of, but the Armenian "Genocide" is
definitely not one of them. In addition... excuse me, but what is there on his web
page that documents historic "evidence"?)
He goes from site to site,
especially to the memorials of Young Turks (photographs of which he has plastered
his big old copyright notice upon... hey, they're only unremarkable shots of scenery
with the purpose of documentation that any tourist could have mustered)... with the
outrage that the Turks would be despicable enough to honor the memory of these men.
(Opinion on Talat Pasha:
"I knew exactly who 'this fucker' was — a man whose crimes equaled those of
Hitler and Stalin." Hoo-boy! Good going, fella, doing your thorough homework on
Actually, the man has done his homework... he
just rejects flat out of hand what the "Turkish government says." Even to
the extent of saying, "The Turkish... government links Armenians to the Nazis
by claiming an Armenian battalion served under the Nazi Wehrmacht and that Armenians
published Anti-Semitic propaganda during the second world war." CLAIMING! In
other words, to his closed-up little Armenian-loving mind, the fact that Armenians were at one with the Nazis
is a lie, like everything else.
(Of course, I am only assuming Mr. Brueggermann
is not an Armenian... his web site pays lip service to other genocides, but as is a
commonly deceptive Armenian practice, his is only one of many web sites that
masquerade as general genocide sites, but actually serve as fronts to hurl hated and
defamatory mud against the Turks. For a non-Armenian or non-Greek to be motivated to
construct a site for this purpose would either take passionate anti-Turkish bigotry,
or perhaps the ethnic background of the site's creator is not quite what visitors
are led to believe.)
He travels east, and an Armenian-Turk suspects
the man is not on the up and up, and refuses to have his photograph taken.
(Previously, Mr. Brueggermann himself refuses to "trust this kind, elderly
Armenian man." Isn't that carrying paranoia too far? Probably that's why the
man refused to allow his photo to be taken... his senses told him there was
something really fishy about Mr. Brueggermann.) The Armenian-Turk's senses were on
the mark... Mr. Brueggemann takes every opportunity to lie about who he is,
and what he's up to.
At the end of the story, when he's finally
"free" of the Land from Hell, he breathes a sigh of relief that he no
longer has to misrepresent himself... and yet, on the boat that is taking him safely
away from being hung upside down and getting his bare feet beaten (a la the
cinematic Billy Hayes), he STILL misrepresents himself to two female Australian
tourists who ask what he did during his "vacation." (As of this writing,
March 2003.) A real man of honor.
Curiously, a Turkish cab driver somehow DID
figure out what Mr. Brueggemann was up to (along with a Turkish restaurateur who
strongly suspected the man was not whom he claimed he was), and Mr. Brueggemann
began to quake in his dishonest boots. Yet, the Turks were cool about the
back-stabbing nature of their country's guest (the Turks didn't go to the
"Gestapo" with the information), and very friendly... as were, evidently,
every other Turk Mr. Brueggemann came across. You would think that in itself would
have opened up the man's blindly prejudiced eyes. Some people who have been
brainwashed are clearly beyond hope.
This man's irresponsibility in considering only
one side of a story and callously preparing a biased web site based on his distorted
views clearly makes him guilty of murder... in the form of "Rufmord."
ADDENDUM: This page was
among the first prepared for the site, where I had a tendency to write with greater
fire and brimstone. Subsequently, Mr. Brueggemann and I had a brief correspondence.
I haven't visited his site to see if he has made changes... at his core, he's
probably too diehard a believer to have done so... but I hope he has come to realize
that, at least partly, he has erred in relying so exclusively upon his sources, to
have arrived at such ruinously accusatory conclusions.
Scales of Good and Evil
An interesting web site that lists the "Top
Ten" Evil and Good people in the world. I'm mainly including this site to prove
to Rudy Brueggemann, above, that he was dead wrong when he asserted Talat Pasha was
"a man whose crimes equaled those of Hitler and Stalin." Well, the Top Ten Evil
List says otherwise. Hitler clocks in at Number Three, and Stalin is at Number Nine... but
Talat Pasha comes in dead last among the runner-ups, on the heels of Heinrich Himmler.
("Heinrich Himmler was the architect of the "Final Solution." Tallat (sic)
Pasha decreed there must be no Armenians on the Earth. 1.5 Million Armenians were
beaten, raped, robbed, and killed.") There you have it, it's official.
(Gee. I wonder where Talat Pasha actually decreed, "there must
be no Armenians on the Earth." Even I haven't run into that one, having visited so
many Armenian web sites, the last few months. Quick, Armenian web site owners: make a note
of that, to include in your lists of "Talat Quotes.")
Even in the tables of infamy, the Turks get the short end of the
stick. How dare Talat Pasha not beat out Gilles de Rais, who only killed a measly 140
people. Why, Talat Pasha was responsible for having made sure 1.5 Million Armenians were
beaten, raped, robbed, and killed.
Looking around this web site for a few minutes, I was intrigued with
between a Romanian and the webmaster, discussing whether Vlad the Impaler should be on the
Evil List. (If memory serves, Vlad only killed a few hundred thousand folks. Why should he
beat out Talat Pasha, when Talat Pasha had 1.5 Million Armenians beaten, raped, robbed,
and killed?) Most Romanians regard the inspiration for Dracula as a
good guy, as the Romanian explains... because even though he killed so many people, many
of the killed were only Turks, you see. (Turks and rich people.)
Then there is a reader's mail which serves as the only indictment
against an entire country, when the idea of the site is to list individual evil-doers.
Yet, this person ("Bob D.") could not restrain himself from breaking the rule.
Which country would that be? You guessed it... Turkey. Although Bob D. nicely gives
the Turks credit for providing a safe haven for the Jews... a very little-known fact among
"ordinary people"... he feels "how the Turks have treated the Kurds
(a genocide of thousands
of them in the past 20 years) puts Turkey on the most evil list, too." Let's see
now... Genocide of the Armenians. Check. Genocide of the Greeks. Check. Genocide of the
Assyrians. Check. Genocide of the Kurds... (sigh.)
Joseph and Jenny Randerson
Mike Joseph, as far as I could figure, is an an author who is
" writing a book on the Holocaust... based on his family's story as
survivors of that genocide." His speech, "Denying Hitler's Question"
was delivered on April 24 or 25, 2002, in the National Assembly of Wales
(co-sponsored by the Armenian-Wales Solidarity... why, those Armenians are everywhere)
appeared on a page of a site called CRAG (Campaign for Recognition of the
Armenian Genocide, described as "a single-issue pressure group," whose
"central aim is to secure official British Government recognition of the
Armenian W.W.I experience as genocide."
He hopes to make the case that Hitler's infamous quote, which
he recites as "Who after all talks nowadays of the extermination of the
Armenians?" was definitely made. (This is yet ANOTHER variation of the alleged quote! I wish people who are in
a quandary to have us believe Hitler actually said this thing would get right
exactly what he is supposed to have said..!) At any rate, Mike Joseph's supporting
statements are what caught my eye, rather than the stupid quote.
Mr. Joseph tells us the reason why Adolf supposedly uttered
these words was to "convince" his generals that genocide would be in their
future. Unfortunately, the 1939 speech in which this quote was supposedly made had
nothing to do with the Jews... Hitler was invading Poland. (And did Hitler need to
"convince" anybody? He was Der Fuehrer!)
As Mike Joseph describes giving his lecture in the University
of Wales (Swansea), he is annoyed to find a student sitting with a "fixed,
waterproof kind of smile that displays scorn rather than satisfaction." When
the student objected by bringing up such seemingly incidental points as 1) There was
no genocide, 2) Armenians were just as bad (the student was being kind), and 3)
Western references to the "genocide" were mistakes, lies and forgeries,
Mr. Joseph sniffed that these were "lame assertions"... particularly in
light of Mr. Joseph's having examined a paper by "a leading Turkish denier of
the Armenian Genocide, Professor Dr. Türkkaya Ataöv."
Even if Mike Joseph truly managed to tear apart Dr. Türkkaya Ataöv's paper, how can he justify
pooh-poohing the "lame assertions"? Dr. Türkkaya Ataöv's paper, Hitler and the
Armenian Question, mainly deals with... as the title promises... Hitler's
connection with the Armenians.
not long after the days when Mike Joseph alleges Herr Richter served as der
The gist of Hitler's intimacy with the
Armenian "Genocide," according to Mike Joseph, had to do with the Nazi
leader's association with a Max Erwin
von Scheubner Richter.... a Vice Consul and commander of German forces in the
Ottoman Empire. (At the same time? It would be odd for a diplomat to simultaneously
serve as a soldier.) Mr. Joseph claims Richter had firsthand knowledge of the
genocide apparatus, sending the message to Berlin that "The Armenians of Turkey for all practical
purposes have been exterminated."
Hmmm. I'm not in the know as to the extent of Richter's
responsibilities during the War, but I'd imagine he would have had to remain
wherever he was stationed ... and did not have the freedom to check out the far
corners of the Empire, to actually know what the extent of this probable
"extermination policy" could have been. The evidence clearly does not
support nearly the entire Armenian population (1.5 million) of the Ottoman Empire
was done away with (the Welsh gentleman claims "over"
a million and a half Armenians met their "destruction," more than the
number in the entire Ottoman Empire), as the Armenians, who took a few thousand
years to reach a total worldwide population of three million before WWI, could not
have mushroomed to over seven million... in just eighty years or so... if only a few
of them were left behind. This incriminating assertion was only Richter's opinion,
probably influenced by the violence he had direct involvement with.
Richter would become a Nazi, managing the SA... and would be
shot dead in 1923, during Hitler's premature misstep in challenging the State.
With Richter, Mike Joseph proves the Turkish professor was
incorrect in asserting Hitler's associates were "completely ignorant" of
I just read the professor's paper,
and found it to be very professionally prepared and documented. (The professor
obviously believes in the facts he's talking about, and Mr. Joseph's "cheap
shot" statement of "...So when
Professor Ataöv spins, we may be confident he spins in time with the Turkish
government," is out of
line; once again, the desperate assertion that anyone who believes there was no
Armenian "Genocide" cannot make up their own minds, and must be paid or
somehow influenced by the Turkish government.)
Here is a very wise passage from
Professor Ataöv's paper:
In many human records there may be
contradictions, and interpretations may be disputed by different parties. But a
"statement", a single sentence attributed to a man; i.e., Hitler, whose
opinions are now in utter disrespect, is a detestable piece of propaganda. It is
ugly and loathsome to expect any gain from words, supposed to have been uttered by
someone whose uniqueness in history has been to lead a great nation off to war,
conquest and ruin. How can just ten words summarize a controversial phenomenon of
the last century and the beginning of the present one?
I didn't find where the professor said Hitler's associates
were "completely ignorant" of the genocide....although I didn't look
through the paper with a fine-toothed comb... as this is the only thing Mike Joseph
is talking about having possibly countered, in the professor's paper. (Mike Joseph
only alludes to the "hard evidence" of Hitler's
quote as a " smoking gun"...
but does not specify this evidence.) Is it possible the
professor might have been referring to Hitler's associates during the time of the
alleged quote's speech (in 1939) who were ignorant of the Armenian
"Genocide"? And not some Nazi who died sixteen years earlier..?
How many of the 12,800 German military personnel stationed
in the Ottoman Empire during
WWI went on to become "leading Nazi criminals,"
anyway? (He's trying to say all these soldiers had firsthand exposure to the
"genocide"... including the many who were stationed at the western part of
the nation in Gallipoli, led by Liman von Sanders?) 12,800 personnel is not that large a figure from a war that took place nearly
a quarter-century prior to Hitler's speech. Did Mike Joseph get a list of these
individuals and cross-check them to see who among them rose to become Hitler's
associates, in a position to be able to influence Hitler's mind? Or is Mike Joseph
just giving his opinion, here?
The main falsification of history by the Armenian
apologists lies not in what they say, but in what they do not say.
Dr. Justin McCarthy
This page was among the first written for TAT, and leaves much to be desired,
both in style and content. Regarding the influence of the insignificant Nazi,
Max Erwin von Scheubner, whose value Mike Joseph blew out of proportion thanks
to his uncritical acceptance of whatever Armenian propaganda throws his way,
the reader is advised to get a clearer picture of those who most likely really
served as a genocidal
influence upon Hitler. The fact is, Hitler did not have to look beyond his
own back yard.
Mike Joseph claims, "my point of view, though deeply
respecting evidence and truth, is not academic but personal." (Since some among
his family were victims of the Nazis, Mr. Joseph apparently craves making an
association with the Armenians... so that he may enjoy that warm and fuzzy bonding
sensation, I suppose. Well, what about the Turks who died under the Armenians'
campaign of systematic extermination?
The one "The Jewish Times" stated (in their June 21,
1990 edition) served as the REAL "appropriate analogy with the Jewish
Holocaust"? I guess Mike Joseph can't identify with those sufferers, perhaps
because they're Muslims, and don't count.)
If he so deeply respects evidence and truth, how can he cite
Lloyd George, Lord Bryce and the young Arnold Toynbee? Hey. Learn your history. None
of these men were objective, when it came to the matters of the Ottoman Empire. The
very prejudiced Lloyd George was intent in wiping the Turkish nation off the face of
the map. The latter two ran Wellington
House, an exceptionally effective propaganda bureau whose only purpose was to
vilify Britain's wartime enemies. So don't go quoting from their fairy tale
1915-1916 book, discredited immediately after the war, if you want to present
yourself as a man of integrity.
Also in Mr. Joseph's footnotes: "Hitler's rhetorical
question was posed in a speech to his military commanders on 22 August 1939...
Versions of the speech were also taken in evidence at the Nuremberg
Trials." There was an attempt to introduce the quote at the Nuremberg Trials,
but the judges were too smart to be taken in. It's widely known the quote was rejected at the Nuremberg Trials. (The
Nuremberg Tribunal accepted two versions of this Hitler talk, USA-29 and USA-30, and
neither text contained the quote; they refused to approve a third version. So, in a
way, Mike Joseph is
technically not lying, since versions were accepted — just not the versions with
the quote. However, Mike Joseph
is clearly giving the impression the Hitler quote was accepted at
Nuremberg.) What kind of "respecting
evidence and truth" is this?
And here's the whopper:
"Responsible for implementing the genocide, the Turks had
their own SS — the Special Organisation, and there was even a Turkish Wannsee
Conference, a secret gathering of 75 top leaders in Istanbul on February 26, 1915 to
finalise the operational plan for the solution to the Armenian
Question. A plan which achieved the destruction of over a million and a half
STOP THE PRESSES! Mr. Mike Joseph has actually found the REAL
"smoking gun" genocide advocates have been searching for all these many
years. Why, it's the Turkish Wannsee Conference. That's IT! Case
closed.... genocide proven!
I guess we can all go home now. But... wait.
I wonder why this amazing and case-closing discovery hasn't
made headlines? I wonder why the Armenian web sites, who have no qualms about
putting in all kinds of misleading disinformation to trap the unwary, haven't made
any mention of this "Wannsee Conference"? (At least none of the many I've
been visiting, of late.)
(This whole Armenian "Genocide" business is like a
giant jigsaw puzzle. I'm spotting similarities in what Mike Joseph is saying with
the words of professional Armenian ministers of disinformation, like Dadrian and
Papazian. When I first read this Mike Joseph piece, I got the feeling he conducted
his own independent research. Now I'm getting the strong feeling the only research
he conducted was copying the findings of the Armenian professors.)
Then he goes on to say the Ottomans had "concentration
camps." In case Mr. Joseph isn't aware, two typically required components of a
concentration camp are people held against their will (think prison walls and barbed
wire), and armed guards. Is he trying to tell us the relocated Armenians were
forcibly imprisoned in a Turkish Auschwitz or Dachau that the nearly bankrupt
Ottoman Empire spent the cash to construct? (I guess if there were a Turkish Wannsee
Conference and Turkish SS in his little fantasy world, there must have been similar
counterparts to Nazi concentration camps.)
This "concentration camp" assertion is repeated, on
another page of the CRAG site, by a Jenny Randerson, identified as "the leading
figure on behalf of Armenian Genocide Recognition in Wales." She "spoke
with tremendous emotion and clarity," saying:
"Turkey can certainly be blamed for its modern denial [of the Armenian
Genocide]. And I say to representatives of the modern Turkish Government who have
sought to put pressure on me since I spoke out on this issue, that as someone who in
past life was a historian, I know how to judge evidence and weigh up the pros and
cons, and to judge where the truth lies."
heats up the feet
HAH? Are we now to assume the Turkish government had nothing
better to do but to "put pressure" on this rinky-dink lady? (I wonder what
form this "pressure" took? Did she get a nasty letter? Or did the Turkish
government send "Bluto," the prison guard from MIDNIGHT EXPRESS, to put
the little lady's feet in red
hot iron shoes?) And if she really was a "historian," perhaps she has
forgotten the duty of a historian is to look at a story objectively, with none of
that "tremendous emotion"! (What do you make of the Malta Tribunal,
"historian"? As if there is not a wealth of other impartial evidence that
would cause doubt in any reasonable person's mind... any reasonable person who
refuses to get suckered in, that is.)
Where does this near-pathological sympathy for the Armenians
stem from? I certainly don't want to make charges I can't back up (that would be the
way too many Armenians and Greeks choose to go, in their campaign to give a negative
impression upon Turks, whenever possible), but just one of the many, many
well-financed Armenian organizations, AGBU,
has a budget of twenty seven million dollars. Multiply that with all the other
millions from all the other Armenian organizations, worldwide... Where does this
money go? (Of course, a good portion goes to buying politicians and media air time,
if America is an example... but there is so much of this money. Where does it all
Assuming these two are pure at heart, let's examine what their
possible motivations could be. Mr. Joseph is a presumed Jew who was affected by the
Holocaust... so now he's seeing Nazis where he wants to. Ironically, he is
overlooking the Armenians' role
during World War Two, when they lent a healthy hand to their Nazi pals to clean
up Jews, probably like Mr. Joseph's murdered family members. Otherwise, let's say
these two think the Armenians got a raw deal and are basically outraged. What would
compel them to spend so much time and energy on the subject? I understand the
Japanese are still whitewashing or "denying" some of their crimes during
the WWII era... as with the Rape of Nanking... but that wouldn't make me create a
web site over such an injustice, and go out and give speeches. (It took me years to
finally get around to creating this web site, that I fervently believe in!) If Mr.
Joseph and Ms. Randerson are so outraged over what happened to the poor, innocent
Armenians, why are they not speaking up for some other examples of man's inhumanity
to man... all the more glaring, because we never hear about them?
What about the crimes of their own country, when Britain was
an empire? While "Exterminate
All the Brutes” was, at times, a colonialist policy... when many thousands of
barely-clothed African natives were wiped out under British machine guns, or when
during the second Ashanti war, the king was actually made to kiss the feet of
British officers? What about the one successful genocide in relatively
contemporary history, the total wiping out of the Tasmanians? If the British Empire
did not send settlers to the Tasmanians' part of the world, the Tasmanians would
probably be alive today. Why are these two hypocrites choosing to focus on favorite
whipping boy Turkey, and not looking in their own backyard? And if it's too
uncomfortable for them to consider the genocidal history of their own forefathers,
what about all the many other uncelebrated victims of genocide... why are Mr. Joseph
and Ms. Randerson not crying over these other victims? Because these other victims
weren't Christian, and many weren't white? Could Mr. Joseph and Ms. Randerson's
racism and religious bigotry be at the root of why you won't catch them shedding
tears over the many massacred Turks, by their beloved Armenians?
While I'm aware the Welsh might feel a strange
compulsion to carry on the proud Turk-hating principles laid by David Lloyd George,
the Welsh prime minister of Great Britain who designed to wipe Turkey off the face
of the map... I hope not all Welsh people are as
closed-minded, unfair and hysterical about the Armenian "Genocide" issue
as these two; it would be enough to make one lose one's respect for Catherine
nniversary Professor of History at Birkbeck
College, London, Mr. Mazower reviewed The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman
Empire, 1915-16: Documents Presented to Viscount Grey of Falloden by Viscount Bryce
Uncensored Edition by James Bryce and Arnold Toynbee, edited by Ara Sarafian, at this site. At
least he makes an attempt to consider the Turkish perspective (for example, he
correctly cites that there were one and a half million Armenians in the Ottoman
Empire), so he's not as hysterically bat-blind, as many other Turcophobes are.
However, in an essay entitled "The G-Word," the "Genocide"
indeed bloody well took place, pip-pip, no question about it.
He cites the usual statistics, such as
"Between 1894 and 1896, at least a hundred thousand Armenians had died in
massacres in eastern Anatolia." In 1915, the Armenians began to get their raw
deal because "Enver and his circle needed scapegoats for their recent military
failures," similar to Hitler's Jews-as-scapegoats.
"According to the inspector-general of
the Ottoman forces in Anatolia, the Governor of Van had given an order 'to
exterminate all Armenian males of 12 years and over'. On 20 April, the Armenians of
Van rose in self-defence, and held on till a Russian advance reached them in
May." That's the kind of information that would interest me... an actual order
for extermination. However, this is the first time I'm hearing about this supposed
order. (Well... actually... I did read Ambassador Morgenthau's despicably biased
chapter [in "Ambassador Morgenthau's Story"] entitled "The Revolution
at Van," where Morgenthau characterized the governor as a man who "hated
the Armenians," and opined [since the only "evidence" Morgenthau
cites is from missionaries] "There is little question that he came to Van with
definite instructions to exterminate all Armenians." Could this silly book have
been the "evidence" for the British professor we are now referring to?)
1) Enver was looking for scapegoats to take
the attention away from his military failure,
2) Enver's brother-in-law, was appointed
Governor of Van in February 1915
3) Blood is thicker than water, so in order
for Enver to save face, the brother-in-law orders a cruel slaughter of Armenian
Oh, for the love of all things that are good
and holy. How very tidily convenient. A schoolchild could only believe this silly
Did the Ottoman inspector-general claim that
the governor gave this order? If so, when did the Ottoman inspector-general claim
this... during the kangaroo
courts in Allied-occupied Istanbul when people were saying everything and
anything to save their necks? Why wasn't this information used as evidence for the
Malta Tribunal, where the British searched feverishly for nearly two-and-a-half
years to convict Ottoman officials of genocide? Or did some Armenian put these words
into the inspector-general's mouth?
Then, on April 20, 1915, the Armenians rose up
in "self-defense." If the Anniversary Professor buys any more into the
Armenian B.S., he would start becoming Armenian himself. Professor Mazower
unfortunately has his chronology mixed up. You see, before the poor, innocent
Armenians rose up in "self-defense," they had already rebelled in Van, months earlier.
The professor would think the "Call to
Arms" documented in the November 1914 issue of the Hunchak Armenian
[Revolutionary] Gazette must have had some effect: "The entire Armenian Nation
will join forces — moral and material, and waving the sword of Revolution, will
enter this World conflict ... as comrades in arms of the Triple Entente, and
particularly Russia... Armenians proud to shed their blood for the cause of
Just the fact that the Armenians would be able
to hold the city until the Russians arrived, as the professor writes, should have
made the professor raise his eyebrows... how could these unarmed, defenseless
citizens manage to mount such a significant counter-offensive against the implied
considerable Ottoman forces [carrying out such a huge order as the near-entire
extermination of Armenian men in the Ottoman city where there were the most
Armenians would have taken a lot of manpower]?
(Morgenthau, through his ghost-writer:
"The whole Armenian fighting force consisted of only 1,500 men; they had only
300 rifles and a most inadequate supply of ammunition, while Djevdet had an army of
5,000 men, completely equipped and supplied. Yet the Armenians fought with the
utmost heroism and skill; ... I cannot describe in detail the numerous acts of
individual heroism, the cooperation of the Armenian women, the ardour and energy of
the Armenian children, the self-sacrificing zeal of the American missionaries,
especially Doctor Ussher and his wife and Miss Grace H. Knapp, and the thousand
other circumstances that made this terrible month one of the most glorious pages in
modern Armenian history. The wonderful thing about it is that the Armenians
triumphed." 300 rifles, limited ammunition, and they hold out for over a
month against "5,000 men, completely equipped and supplied"? Tell us
another one, Henry.)
(Oh, here's another one. The Van governor,
Djevdet, would nail "horseshoes to the feet of his Armenian victims." It
is truly criminal that the ambassador and former lawyer had such low moral scruples
that he would be responsible for this fiendish book, based entirely on hearsay...
regarding the Armenians, at least.)
As the Times link above states, the
Armenians refused to join the army. The Armenians were in open revolt. For years,
their revolutionary leaders had planned to strike when their nation was at war, and
in preparation for such treachery, they had amassed a huge cache of weaponry and
even uniforms, throughout the empire. The fact of the matter is, many Armenians in
the army deserted. (The 205,000 Armenian fighters, by Armenian Boghos Nubar Pasha's count, had to come from
somewhere... and he was not only talking about the Russian Armenians... since the
Russian Armenians were already part of the Russian army; Nubar was referring to
other Armenians as well, helping the Allied cause. Turkish professor Yusuf Halacoglu
claims "pertinent documents" [letters from Armenians are provided as
examples] — in his "Realities on the Armenian Immigration, 1915" [TTK
Publications, Ankara, 2001] — demonstrate 50,000 Ottoman Armenian soldiers
deserted to join the Russians,
and many thousands of "Armenian soldiers went to America to be trained in the
US Army to fight against the Turkish Army." One Ottoman-Armenian who betrrayed
his country to join the Russians, although probably not as an Ottoman soldier but as
an Armenian teenager, was Gourgen Yanikian ... at 78, he tricked two Turkish
diplomats to come to a California hotel room on the pretext of donating a painting
to Turkey, and shot both dead on
January 27, 1973) Mr. Mazower repeats the Armenian claims that the Armenian
soldiers fought loyally, and I'm not saying some did not. But there were MUCH too
many signs of their disloyalty, and any nation would have reassigned them to
"labor battalions," under the circumstances.
Arthur Tremaine Chester wrote in his Feb.1923 article
that appeared in The New York Times Current History, "Angora and the Turks":
The facts are that the Turks sent an army to
the Russian border to defend their country against the threatened Russian invasion.
The army consisted of Turkish subjects of all nationalities, being drafted just as
ours are drafted. At the front the Armenians used blank cartridges and deserted in
droves. This was bad enough, but the Armenians were not satisfied with this form of
treachery. The provinces in the rear of the army had a large Armenian population,
and these people, feeling that there was an excellent chance of the Russians
defeating the Turks, decided to make it a certainty by rising up in the rear of the
army and cutting it off from its base of supplies.
"Working through the military, the
regional bureaucrats and Enver's own secret service, the Teskilat-i Mahsusa, which
carried out his dirty work throughout the Empire, the new leadership had begun
preparations for the killings perhaps as early as February 1915." For goodness'
sakes. Everyone knows the Ottoman Empire had a generally "a la Turca" kind
of inefficiency and disorganization about it. How could a GENOCIDE be implemented if
these regional bureaucrats were not communicated with? At least ONE telegram would
have survived, don't you think? If anything, the telegrams on record indicate the welfare and safekeeping of the
Armenians were being kept in mind. And DON'T tell me the sinister agents of
the Teskilat-i Mahsusa traveled to the far corners of the Empire, when manpower was
at such a shortage during this desperate period of wartime (with battles on multiple
fronts), and that these secret agents conveyed their genocidal instructions on paper
with invisible ink, or something out of a cheap spy movie... just so later
generations could not find evidence of their government's evil-doing. The Ottoman
Turks were already aware the Turks' name was mud throughout the Western world, no
matter what they did... and "covering their tracks" would not have even
occurred to them. Especially when they had freed themselves of the years-long and
humiliating European-imposed capitulations... and were in a "To Hell with
The professor raises the interesting point:
"...The Turkish authorities, ... do not seem to blanch at the term 'massacre'
but are beside themselves when the G-word is mentioned." "Why does it
matter whether or not the massacres are 'officially' a genocide?"..
The answer is, a genocide is the worst crime
against humanity there is. Genocide, as defined by the 1948 United Nations
Convention on the Prevention of the Crime of Genocide, makes clear that genocide is
a crime of "specific intent." One cannot infer genocide from
actions, one must prove by direct evidence that the accused party intended to
destroy the protected group. Has any such reliable evidence ever been found? To
answer this question, ask yourself... how come World War I's "Nuremberg,"
the Malta Tribunal, which set out
exactly on such a mission, released every single Ottoman official in the end?
At the time of the Convention's ratification,
the Secretary General of the U.N. also made clear that the Convention does not
protect "political groups"; homicide becomes genocide when the destruction
is directed at members of a protected group simply because they are members of that
group. The Ottoman Armenians did not constitute a protected group because the
Dashnak and Hunchak guerrillas and their civilian accomplices openly and admittedly
waged war against their own government. "The relocation would not have taken
place had the Armenians not violently and politically allied themselves with the
invading Russian forces... the relocation had nothing to do with the Armenians'
ethnic or religious identity."
So what does the professor think, Turkey has to admit a genocide when a genocide as
defined by the U.N. Convention on Genocide did not take place? If the professor is
so desperate for admission of genocide, he might do better to look at the background
of his forefathers' actions.
The professor does make a valid point when he
speculates one reason why the Turks are sensitive to this issue is "...more
intimately bound up with official Turkish self-perceptions." Naturally. When
Turks have been unfairly accused by the West of being barbarians for many centuries,
naturally the Turks would be a tad more sensitive. Wouldn't anyone?
Regarding the professor's thought-provoking
assertion that the Turks hate the idea of genocide but don't mind
"massacres," let's examine this for a moment. Massacres aren't such a nice
thing either. However, the Turks admit to the massacres that took place in their
history, because what are they going to do? As opposed to genocide, massacres did
take place. Turks don't claim they have been angels throughout history... and unlike
Armenians, Turks tell the truth.
However, what about the extent of these
massacres? For example, when the professor states, "Between 1894 and
1896, at least a hundred thousand Armenians had died in massacres in eastern
Anatolia," one gets the idea that the savage, cruel Ottoman forces deliberately
carved up innocent people... kind of like this image:
Armenian web sites, included among the rows of photos with skeletons and
suffering people, of dubious origin... to prove the "Genocide." In
photo is the only evidence that would make me think a genocide took place, as
the Ottoman soldiers are clearly cutting up the innocent victims. Oh, hold on
a second! This is a PAINTING, not a photograph...
the men on horseback weren't even meant to be Turks. Some Armenian
might have run into this
image and thought, hey! This could serve a purpose...
However, given the motivations of the many
prejudiced people who reported these massacres (as Bryce and Rev. E.W. McDowell
cited at the bottom of Mazower's page; E.W. was a missionary.... enough said. Bryce was running Wellington House, Mazower's
nation's unscrupulous propaganda machinery, and Bryce's Blue Book was discredited
after the war), is it fair to accept at face value this image whenever we hear the
Turks have been guilty of massacres? For another view of the exaggerated Abdul Hamid
massacres, look here. One
reason that has been put forth as to why the half-Armenian Abdul Hamid has been
accused of massacring Armenians is because he hated Armenians, like Hitler hated the
Jews. (Kind of like the reason Mr. Mazower gives for the Armenian
"Genocide": Enver Pasha needed scapegoats!) Is that what really
There are many examples of missionaries and
others claiming massacres of horrifying numbers in villages where only dozens of
people lived. (Read this eye-opening examination of the Bristol Papers, for example.) Gladstone really went to town with
his exaggerations in his report of the Bulgarian atrocities because he was, well, Gladstone. (As with
the Armenian episode, note the inequality; 10,000 Bulgarians died vs. 262,000
Turks/Muslims, with a further 568,000 exiled [McCarthy]; the latter victims were
invisible, in Western eyes.) Armenians who perished with the retreating Russians did
not die at the hand of the Ottoman sword, and yet these 40,000 souls (Hovannisian
wrote some 150,000 ) are listed among the massacred Armenians of the
"Genocide." (As Kamuran Gurun brought up, 2-3,000 Armenians who were with
the French died during a retreat.... Were the French guilty of "massacring" these Armenians?)
And who committed many of the actual
massacres, anyway? Troops acting under government orders, as is usually implied? No.
Armenians would provoke their neighbors with revolutionary acts and outright
massacres, and the Muslims would then be out on an "eye for an eye" blood
feud. (Armenians and Greeks act.... and Turks react.) Many of the
Armenians who got murdered on their relocating marches were victims of Muslim bands,
a good number out for revenge... and the gendarmes who were assigned to protect the
Armenians were few in number, or rotten in quality. (Rotten in quality because of a
sinister campaign to exterminate the Armenians, or because there was a desperate war
situation with mortal enemy Russia at the gates, and manpower was critically short?
For example, The Ottoman central government had ordered the Van governor to send
gendarmes to guard columns of Armenian deportees. He responded that because most of
his forces were at the front fighting the Russian Army and its Armenian irregulars,
he was left with only 40 gendarmes at his disposal and they were protecting Muslim
villages against Armenian attacks. Yep, the same Van governor, I'd imagine, who had
given the order "to exterminate all Armenian males of 12 years and over,"
according to Professor Mazower.)
Alluding to some of these massacres, U.S. Admiral Colby M.
Chester wrote in 1922: "There
have been riots, now and then, when local Turks have felt that their rights have
been outraged by outsiders. It seems to me that once or twice I have read something
about riots in America in circumstances of like sort, although of differing detail.
Speaking generally, the Turks are far more patient than Americans would be."
The admiral's son, Arthur Tremaine Chester, embellished the unfairness of massacre
reports in 1923, with: "It
has been the custom of those who wish to condemn the Turk to give religious
intolerance as the cause of all disturbances in Turkey. I have never heard one of
these people admit that politics, treachery, or any other similar cause had any
connection with them. If an Armenian or Greek is killed, it is always referred to as
the massacre of a Christian."
It was true then, and it's still true now. One would
hope apparently fair-minded men like Professor
Mazower would take the trouble of scratching
beneath the surface, but swallowing the Armenian line hook, line and sinker is just
too easy and irresistible, I suppose.
The professor concludes, "perhaps as many
as one million Armenians" died. That's from an original population of one and a
half million, as he himself believes. (Yet the Armenians themselves concede one million Armenians survived.) Of
Mazower's remainder of only half a million, we have to conclude there were hardly
any young men... as Professor Papazian, among other Armenians, keeps telling us the
survivors were women, children and old men. (The young men were all shot on the
spot, you see.) This is why, when it took the Armenians a couple of thousand years
to reach a worldwide population of three million just before the war, their numbers
mushroomed to seven million in just eighty five to ninety years.
|Professors Robert Melson & Roger Smith
On September 14, 2000, Professors Robert Melson (of
Purdue University) and Roger Smith (College of William and Mary) offered testimony in
Support of H. Res. 398, yet another one of those ubiquitous Armenian resolutions that have
have been getting in the way of running real government by my country's Congress.
I was familiar with Professor Justin McCarthy's
testimonies before Congress, offering evidence to the contrary of these resolutions.
(Here's the one where Dr. McCarthy
went into battle on the very same resolution.) Professor McCarthy presented some hard
facts to change the minds of many of the prejudiced congressmen. So I was very interested
in what non-Armenian professors had to say in the very same forum... they had to give
equally hard evidence as well, it would seem to me, and not the garbage the Armenians are
usually content with. This is all I'm interested in... the cold, hard facts.
PROFESSOR ROBERT MELSON
Professor Robert Melson began his testimony by
declaring "When I was ten years old in 1947, my family and I immigrated from
Poland to America where we found a home and a sanctuary from the Nazis' attempt to
exterminate the Jews of Europe..." blah, blah, blah. (Mike Joseph, the Welsh
Holocaust Survivor from above, looking to bond with fellow genocide sufferers, might find
a good pal in Professor Melson.) Dr. Melson declares, "I firmly support both parts
of the resolution on scholarly, moral, and strategic grounds." Ohh-kayyy.
"The Armenian genocide was the first genocide of the modern era and set a
precedent not only for the Holocaust but for most contemporary genocides especially in the
Third World..." Blah, blah, blah... all right, already! Let's get to the facts..!
Okay, here it comes:
"In order to understand the phenomenon of genocide members of the Foreign Service
community need to study the Armenian Genocide and America's reaction to it. And one of the
best places to start are the records of the State Department itself, especially Ambassador
AMBASSADOR MORGENTHAU'S STORY? That fictionalized
wartime propaganda garbage that was ghostwritten by another author, and based on letters
and diaries sometimes prepared by Morgenthau's Armenian secretary, that usually had no
bearing with the original letters and diaries (which were already suspect, given that some
of them were written by Hagop Andonian in the name of Morgenthau), as expertly uncovered
in The Story Behind Ambassador Morgenthau's Story? The one that distinguished war and political correspondent George A.
Schreiner criticized in a searing December 11,1918 letter to the racist ex-ambassador,
declaring: "In the interest of truth, I will also affirm
that you saw little of the cruelty you fasten upon the Turks. Besides that you have killed
more Armenians than ever lived in the districts of the uprising. The fate of those people
was sad enough without having to be exaggerated as you have done."?
I think I'm going to have a heart attack.
The Armenians and Greeks can try to pull the wool
over the unwary on their web sites by using such false evidence, but come ON, Professor
Melson... you are facing one of your nation's highest branches of government..! You can't
use "evidence" like "Ambassador Morgenthau's Story," a book that only
pretends to be history, and has used the unethical practice of putting quotation marks
around statements never actually uttered...!
Okay. Okay... (sigh.) Let's see if he's got anything
else to offer.
"Let me start with the first point. When confronted with mass death and forced
deportations, the contemporary world community has often reached for the Holocaust as a
paradigmatic case of genocide, in order both to make sense of and to condemn..."
Blabbity blah blah blah....
"The Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust are
the quintessential instances of total genocide in the 20th century. In both instances a
deliberate attempt was made by the government of the day to destroy in part or in whole
So the Holocaust and the Armenian
"Genocide" are the same thing? Oh, really?
"The mix of ethnic conflict over land driven
by a murderous nationalism should be familiar to any student of the contemporary Third
World or post-communist Yugoslavia..." Hey, let's quit referring to the murderous
actions of the nationalistic Armenians for free land, and get with the program already..!
Okay, I'm fast forwarding through more of the same...
ah. Here we go. "Evidence."
"Henry Morgenthau was the American ambassador during some of the worst moments of
the genocide. He received information from American consuls like Leslie A. Davis in
Harpout, as well as from missionaries and other American citizens."
So it's the same, familiar song. Morgenthau.
Missionaries. U.S. Consuls like Leslie Davis, few of whose views differed from Turcophobe
Henry Morgenthau, and who relied on the word of lying Armenians and missionaries. I covered Leslie Davis (and his The Slaughterhouse Province, independently published
by Orthodox friend Aristide Caratzason) in his own page at TAT.
What can be said of scholars working on the
Armenian 'genocide,' who, in publication after publication, over the past decades
quote the outright lies and half truths which permeate Morgenthau's 'Story' without
ever questioning even the most blatant of the inconsistencies?
Dr. Heath Lowry
"The Story Behind Ambassador Morgenthau's Story"
"On the basis of this information he
concluded that the Ottoman government of the day had decided to exterminate the
Armenians..." Morgenthau already had that made up in his mind the moment he
decided to vilify the Turks and Germans in order to induce America into war. (For one
reason, to better clear a path for a Jewish homeland in Palestine.) The ambassador was eagerly working in
cahoots with that British pair of propagandist falsifiers, Lord Bryce and Arnold Toynbee,
who worked for Britain's Wellington
House... and also with Vicar Dr. Lepsius,
who as president of a German-Armenia organization and as a religious man, was far from an
impartial observer. All of these Turk-haters rehashed the same false information between
them. Unfortunately, as far as ACTUAL proof of a government-sponsored genocide plan,
Morgenthau had none; and neither does our friendly professor, Dr. Melson. (Not so far
anyway... let's keep going. Maybe he'll have a big bomb awaiting....)
Turning to the last point allow me to speak as a
proud American citizen, not only as a scholar of genocide...
Hold on a minute — let me get my flag out.
You are NOT a scholar of genocide, if this malarkey
is the best you could come up with. The only reason why you are called a
"scholar" is because you happen to be operating in a society that is
pre-disposed toward views like yours, with little regard to the truth (as far as the
Armenian "Genocide" is concerned)... given the century of bombardment of
unilateral anti-Turkish propaganda from biased people just like you.
I find it thoroughly dishonorable that knowing
what we know about the Armenian Genocide, we persist in using euphemisms like
"tragedy," "catastrophe," and "massacre" when referring to
the mass-murder for fear of offending Turkish sensibilities. Would we abide such behavior
from a Germany that denied the Holocaust?
Thank you for your useless opinion... got any more
facts for me?
The Big Finish:
Last March I had
the privilege of participating at a conference on the Armenian Genocide at the University
of Chicago, which was attended by American, Armenian, and Turkish scholars. We discussed
the Armenian Genocide in open fora, with Turkish scholars not once questioning the
facticity of the genocide. Indeed, some of their contributions concerning the ideology of
the Young Turks was fresh and to the point. While talking to my Turkish colleagues it
dawned on me that one of the reasons they were openly and courageously researching and
discussing the Armenian Genocide, despite their government's denial, was because they were
Turkish patriots who wished to see Turkey move towards a more modern, more open, more
just, and more democratic society. In their view having Turkey bravely confront her past
in the manner that Germany did with the Holocaust, South Africa did with apartheid, and
the United States is attempting to do with the legacy of slavery would be a major step in
the healing of the breach, the maturation of Turkey into a democratic civilization. It is
of no help to my Turkish colleagues and to other democratic forces in Turkey, nor indeed
to the good name and honor of the United States, to have the President use half-truths and
euphemisms when speaking about the Armenian Genocide.
Thank you for allowing me to testify Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
Lord. Please rescue me from this insane, untruthful world.
The Armenian forces have been beside themselves to
recruit "Turkish scholars" since Turks, awakened mostly in the early 80s from
their silence, finally decided to give Armenians a run for their money... necessitating
the Armenians to recruit some additional artillery. These Turkish scholars — I cannot
speak for all of them, and perhaps there are one or two independent true believers of the
Armenian "Genocide" among them — have their own agendas; either they want to
be the darlings of the West, make a name for themselves (Woo-hoo! A Turk into the Armenian
"Genocide"... still a novelty factor to exploit, there), and some just hate
Turks. (Since everyone else seems to hate Turks, aren't some Turks entitled to do the
same?) Other "Turncoat Turks" simply appear to be sponsored by the wealthy
Armenians, such as Taner Akcam. Exactly
for the Propaganda-Photo-Opportunity moments such as this one, that Professor Melson is
making darned sure to exploit.
Recently there have been meetings on the Armenian
Question held in Germany and America. The meetings in America were mainly held behind
closed doors. They were secret. No one but the participants knows what went on in these
meetings. Some few meetings have allowed the public to listen, but have never included
speakers who have doubted the existence of the "Armenian Genocide."
Nevertheless, these meetings have been widely publicized, because there have been both
Turks and Armenians at these meetings. The Armenian nationalists say, "You see,
Turkish scholars agree with us."
This is exactly what Professor Melson was dishonestly hoping to do with the unwary
congressmen who were listening. Little did they know these "Turkish scholars"
had to belong to the club, first. An objective scholar like Professor McCarthy would not
have been allowed to attend this "conference on the Armenian Genocide." Nor
would have any of the vast majority of Turkish scholars who are not patsies to the
Armenian cause. There is almost no room for honest debate in conferences as the one
Professor Melson, along with Professor Hovannisian and others,
serve on the seven-member Academic
Council of the Armenian National Institute (ANI), a group that openly admits its
dedication "to the study, research, and affirmation of the Armenian
Genocide." Any historian who doesn't maintain an open mind has no business being a
historian, or university professor.
Professor Melson may not be
Armenian, but he is so tied up with the Armenian cause, for all purposes and intents, he
is an Armenian.
Let's get on with our next
Let me begin by putting a human face on the issues we have been asked to discuss: Did
the killing of the Armenians beginning in 1915 constitute genocide?
Good start. There's promise, here.
He goes on to relate being friends with a retired
career U.S. Ambassador for two African states, who expressed the pointlessness of
addressing an Armenian genocide for events that occurred so long ago, suggesting what
might have happened "may not have been genocide anyway, and in any case, it was
time to forget the events and move on." Now here is a man who is thinking
Dr. Smith criticizes his friends for not being aware
of the "costs" involved, including: 1. Lack of respect for the victims; 2.
Sending signals to would-be perpetrators that they can commit genocide, then deny it, and
get away with it; and 3. Cutting us off from knowledge that might help prevent future
Gee. It sounds like Dr. Smith is describing exactly
the costs that could come about from the Armenian refusal to admit their campaign of a
true policy of extermination... that the The Jewish Times opined (in
its June 21, 1990 issue):
"An appropriate analogy with the Jewish
Holocaust might be the systematic extermination of the entire Muslim population of the
independent republic of Armenia which consisted of at least 30-40 percent of the
population of that republic. The memoirs of an Armenian army officer who participated in
and eye-witnessed these atrocities was published in the U.S. in 1926 with the title 'Men Are Like That.' Other references abound."
As for his second point, it's not without
validity; few Westerners like to acknowledge the systematic extermination campaigns the
Armenians implemented in W.W.I and were an active part of during W.W.II, and so the Armenians have gotten
away with their crimes so far... feeling free to systematically engage in mass murder when
they pulled off a sneak, cowardly
attack in Azerbaijan in the early 1990s.
I would love to ask the professor if he is such an
ethical man concerned about the costs of genocide why he is closing his mind to the one
where Turks were the victims, and others (such as this forgotten historical episode,
while not necessarily a genocide, a direct parallel to the Armenian "Genocide,"
with similar casualties, only occurring nineteen years prior)... why is he choosing to
single out the one and only Armenian "Geno$ide," where there certainly is plenty
of objective, Western and even Armenian evidence to the contrary? I have a feeling I will
know the answer to that question, so let us allow him to continue.
He then cites the Rwandan genocide and the resulting
"confusion about how to describe the clearest case of genocide since the
The Armenian case is the prototype for much of the
genocide that we have seen since 1945: It was territorial, driven by nationalism, and
carried out with a relatively low level of technology. There are also powerful resources
for the study of the Armenian genocide in the reports of the American officials at the
time, notably Ambassador Henry Morgenthau and Consul Leslie Davis...
The evidence of intent is backed
All RIGHT. Now we are getting somewhere. Cold, hard
FACTS. After all, the one thing that proves the Armenian "Genocide" could not
have been a genocide as defined by the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention of the Crime of
Genocide is that "specific intent" needs to be proven. (along with that other
bugaboo that "political groups" are exempt... you know, like the Armenians, who
politically allied themselves in violent fashion with Russia, the invading enemy?) This is something which cannot be inferred from actions, but which
must be proven by direct evidence "demonstrating that the accused party
intended to destroy the protected group."
This is exactly what the British hoped to find in
their feverish research during the Malta
Tribunal, for two and a half years, while every Ottoman document was freely available
before the term "shredding" was invented, utilizing a team of mainly Armenians,
and going so far as the shores of the United States in desperate hopes of coming up with
something... anything. To the credit of the British, they knew how to separate fact from
fiction, and all the Morgenthau, Bryce Blue Book, Andonian forgeries of Talat Pasha
telegrams, the Hitler Quote (oh. Forgive me, the Hitler Quote wasn't invented yet. Don't
blame me, there is such a dearth of REAL evidence for the Armenian cause, I figured I'd
help our Armenian friends, by giving them whatever they have)... were simply not
considered, and every single Ottoman official who was imprisoned for all that time were
not only guilty of genocide, but of ANY war crime.
Okay, I'm excited. This is the first time or two I've
encountered an Armenian apologist even admitting the essential feature of
"intent." Let's see if Dr. Smith really has anything, or if he's just Lost in
...explicit Ottoman documents.
Great! What are they?
"Are the Armenians, who are being dispatched
from there, being liquidated? Are those harmful persons whom you inform us you are exiling
and banishing, being exterminated, or are they being merely dispatched and exiled? Answer
Intent is also backed by...
Wait a minute! Wait a minute! Get back to those
"explicit Ottoman documents." What were they??
...the outcome of the actions against the
Armenians: It is inconceivable that over a million persons could have died due to even a
badly flawed effort at resettlement.
Uh-oh. I've got a feeling we're in
"opinion" territory again. I feel like the momentum for cold, hard facts is
being lost... What was that? "Over a million
persons...died?" Heart, please! Stop from sinking... not only are we exiting the
exciting territory of cold, hard facts, but we're fast entering familiar Armenian fantasyland territory....
Moreover, the pattern of destruction was repeated
over and over in different parts of Turkey, many of them far from any war zone; such
repetition could only have come from a central design.
Nobody is arguing there were massacres, but give me
some proof, PLEASE. This "pattern of destruction," where's the proof? Claims by
Armenians and missionaries, and racist U.S. Consuls like George Horton?
Further, the reward structure was geared
toward destruction of the Christian minority: Provincial governors and officials who
refused to carry out orders to annihilate the Armenians were summarily replaced.
Perhaps they refused to carry out such orders, as no
such orders have been known to exist. "Summarily Replaced"? Were there that many
candidates around to take the places of the ones who refused to follow the orders that
were never received, during this desperate stage of wartime and manpower shortage? Imagine
the "training period" any new official would need to go through, gumming up the
works of the nation's operations even further than they were already gummed up.
Armenian men were drafted into the army, set to
work as pack animals, and subsequently
Oh, yes, the old Armenian argument that the Armenian troops were summarily executed.
Leaders were arrested and executed.
Well, I don't want to sound like a broken record
here, but let's be honest. (Good grief, what am I asking... for my "opponent" to
be honest, as well?) As much as the Armenians and their supporters cannot bring themselves
to admit it, the Armenians fired the
first shot. The Armenian troops deserted
in droves to hit the Ottoman army from the back.
The leaders of the Turkish-Armenian section of the
Dashnagtzoutune did not carry out their promise of loyalty to the Turkish cause when the
Turks entered the war. The Dashnagtzoutune in the Caucasus had the upper hand. They were
swayed in their actions by the interests of the Russian government and disregarded,
entirely, the political dangers that the war had created for the Armenians in Turkey.
Prudence was thrown to the winds; even the decision of their own convention of Erzurum was forgotten and a call was sent
for Armenian volunteers to fight the Turks on the Caucasus front.
That was reported by an honest Armenian historian
(what an oxymoron!), K.S. Papazian, from his 1934 work, Patriotism Perverted.
So here we've got the Ottoman Empire in her death
throes, fighting a desperate war for survival, and, look! It's mortal enemy Russia at the
gates, known to ruthlessly and murderously slaughter all Moslem/Turkish people in their
wake. If they come through the door, every Turk knows it will amount to a death sentence,
for them and their ailing nation. And isn't this just peachy? The Ottoman Armenians choose
precisely this moment to betray their country, where they lived and prospered for
Who do you think is going to lead the
revolutionaries? The Armenian street-cleaners and window-washers? No, it would have to be
the Armenian leaders, wouldn't it? Of course they are going to be arrested, and pay a high
prce for their treason. And not ALL of them
were executed. (For example, Peter Balakian cited a couple of survivors in his
"Burning Tigris" work, including his own "Action Priest" relative; famed musician Komitas was released
after two weeks' imprisonment.)
Russian Lt.-Col. Twerdokhleboff, having witnessed
(later in the war) one of the many Armenian
atrocities against Turks that he had witnessed, logically concluded: "...As
the educated classes of the Armenian population could very well have prevented the
massacre, it is to be concluded that these classes played a greater part in the crime than
the bands, and that, in any case, the chief responsibility rests with them."
Then the deportations of women, children, and the
elderly into the deserts of
Syria and Iraq began. The American Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, Henry Morgenthau,
immediately recognized that the forced marches into the desert, and the atrocities that
accompanied them, were a new form of massacre. "When the Turkish authorities gave the
orders for these deportations, they were simply giving the death warrant to a whole race;
they understood this well, and in their conversations with me, they made no particular
attempt to conceal the fact."
Even Robert Lansing, the American Secretary of State
whom Morgenthau reported to (and who helped edit Morgenthau's worthless piece of
propaganda that passed for a book, to make the Turks look even worse... so he was no
friend of the Turks), said in 1916:
"I could see that [the Armenians'] well-known
disloyalty to the Ottoman Government and the fact that the territory which they inhabited
was within the zone of military operations constituted grounds more or less justifiable
for compelling them to depart their homes."
If the Armenians were relocated (they were relocated;
deportation means banishment outside the nation's borders), they had nobody to blame but
themselves. It's tragic the innocent Armenians among them suffered, but that's what you
get when you follow-the-leader. There were many innocent Turks who suffered at the hands
of the not-so-innocent Armenians, at the cost of their lives.
Any government has the right to do exactly what the
Turks did, especially under such critical circumstances, and when there is an armed
rebellion. Don't believe me?
Not incidentally, Dr. Smith, where did you get that
quote of Ambassador Morgenthau's from... the one where he says, "When the Turkish
authorities gave the orders for these deportations, they were simply giving the death
warrant to a whole race"? Why, it's from that phony, made-up, ghostwritten book
of his, isn't it? Morgenthau had reasons to draw his Frank Pallone (a congressional
synonym with the rhyme word, "baloney") conclusions, as the book was intended as
propaganda, and the racist former lawyer's agenda was to present the Turks as evil
incarnate. However, in his private diary/letters, he was singing a whole different tune...
he got the lowdown of the result of these "deportations" directly from the mouth
of an Armenian leader, and learned what
took place was far from a "death warrant." What an exemplary scholar you are
proving yourself to be, so far.
Particularly once I
discovered, after examining Dr. Smith's congressional testimony, the paper this very
testimony was based on... a paper he had written with two other "scholarly"
Armenian apologists, in which they shamelessly attempted to discredit Dr. Heath Lowry
(link at bottom). There is an excellent chance Dr. Smith read
Dr. Lowry's "The Story Behind Ambassador Morgenthau's Story," from
1990, in which Dr. Lowry proves beyond a shadow of a doubt... by cross-checking with
Morgenthau's own diary and letters... what an unreliable source Morgenthau is. Even
with this extremely likely knowledge, Dr. Smith still refers to Morgenthau as a
credible source. (Hmmmmmm... but why?)
If you would like to read the actual relocation
telegram Talat Pasha authored, here is where to
go. And here is the first sign of
considering this awful but necessary step, after patiently suffering through all the many
Armenian rebellions (six months' worth) in a mortal wartime situation.
The ambassadors of Germany and
Austria, representatives of governments allied with Turkey, also quickly realized what was
taking place. As early as July 1915, the German ambassador reported to Berlin: "Turks
began deportations from areas now not threatened by invasion. This fact and the manner in
which the relocation is being carried out demonstrate that the government is really
pursuing the aim of destroying the Armenian race in Turkey." And by January 1917 his
successor reported: "The policy of extermination has largely been achieved; the
current leaders of Turkey fully subscribe to this policy."
This is the only incriminating "evidence"
that does have weight. Let's not forget, though, that these ambassadors were restricted in
the same way Morgenthau was, confined to Istanbul as they were. They had to rely on the
opinions of others, and if they were getting their reports from Germans on the scene, no
doubt the goings-on did not look pretty and they reached some of their own subjective
opinions. (More likely, these officials were bamboozled by the same reports of
missionaries and Armenians, allowing for their own Christian
sympathies to quickly rise to the surface.) However, even if the on-the-scene Germans
witnessed actual massacres by the Turks, which I would highly doubt they would have
(unlike the Russian allies of the Armenians, who served as genuine eyewitnesses), such does not prove a government-sponsored policy of extermination. If the
successor of Baron von Wangenheim (the latter of whom did not escape Morgenthau's
libeling, in Morgenthau's book) actually said "The policy of extermination has
largely been achieved; the current leaders of Turkey fully subscribe to this policy,"
that was only his dramatic opinion, and he was dead wrong. Just examine his
words; if the "policy of extermination" succeeded, that would mean the Armenians
would have truly been "annihilated" in the true meaning of the word, and we know
the majority survived. And is he
actually claiming the Turkish
leaders openly subscribed to an extermination policy? (What an irresponsible
conclusion... if he, indeed, said those words, and somebody didn't stuff them in his
In 1921, the Armenian Patriarch told both the British and the missionary-president
of Istanbul's Robert College that a million Armenians had survived. The post war
population of the Ottoman Empire, based on half a dozen NEUTRAL sources was a median
average of 1,300,000, and certainly no more than 1,500,000. Do the subtraction, and then
tell me if that amounts to whether the "policy of extermination" actually
succeeded. If as much as a third of the Armenians died, they did not all die from
massacres and the trials of the relocations.... they died from the same reasons their
fellow Ottomans died: famine and disease... and as combatants. Aside from the regular
famine and disease running rampant within the Ottoman Empire, for example, large numbers
of Armenians escaped into Russia (after 1916) for fear of retribution when the Turks were
strong enough to reoccupy the eastern vilayets; the ones the Armenians had slaughtered the
Moslem residents of. Many Armenians subsequently died of famine and disease in Russia, and
are naturally counted as victims of the Turks. (Like the 2-3,000 Armenians who died
accompanying the French during a retreat, as cited in the Mark Mazower section above, were
counted as dying directly at the hands of the Turks.)
Ambassador Morgenthau, assuming he was telling the
truth, himself reported in his phony book
that thousands of Turks were dying daily....
DAILY... from the above causes. Logic would tell any of us that at least a few Armenians
would have bitten the dust in the same way, as well. (Morgenthau estimated "that the
empire has lost a quarter of its Turkish population since the war started." That
would be from all causes... massacres (of
which up to 600,000 Turks likely died at the hands of the Armenians directly... more than
the entire loss for the Armenians, combined), war casualties, famine and disease. No
different than for the Armenians.
Getting back to the Germans, no higher an authority
than the commander of the German forces, General Liman von Sanders (as witness for the
defense, in the trial of Tehlirian, assassin of
Talat Pasha), testified:
"I consider it my duty to state that,
in the five years I was in Turkey, I never saw an order signed by Talaat against the
Armenians and neither can I testify whether or not such an order was ever issued."
Von Sanders was in line to see such a smoking gun; he
was exposed to a barrage of government communications every day. If the Ottoman government
truly embarked on a policy of genocide, they would have had to get word to the local
officials in order to carry out such a massive policy. (And it wouldn't have stopped
THERE. Logic suggests there would need to be plenty of
"fine-tuning-the-genocide" orders that would have followed.) I realize Turks
share in similarity to the American Indians in that for the longest time the Indians were
thought to be the bad guys.... before the world finally wised up, when some necessary
"revisionist" history came into play... but the Turks would not have gone so far
as to send out smoke signals, to communicate their murderous orders. (Now I'll see that
idea in Armenian web sites... why not? They have claimed just about every other insane
idea in their desperate quest to prove a genocide, and to soothe their sense of self-identity.)
Dr. Smith: Warning! Warning! You have failed to
convince me, even though I am sure you got through to many of the ignorant and prejudiced
politicians you were addressing. (Certainly, you did not have to convince the bought ones.) Armenians and Greeks know they are
far ahead of the game, thanks to their "built-in constituency" of the ignorant
and the prejudiced, and that's all they need to persuade folks like these fuzzy thinkers.
Naturally, Armenians and their supporters who cannot
believe an American professor going against their views would do so out of integrity must
be accused of being paid for by the Turkish government...which is precisely what happened
with Dr. Heath Lowry. (Dr. Smith himself was a party to the execrable smear campaign.)
Anyone who thinks Dr. Justin McCarthy is motivated by anything but regard for the
truth has an agenda to fulfill. Professor McCarthy takes the time to attend these
congressional resolutions because he knows if he doesn't, hardly any other Western scholar
else will (representing the Turkish truth). He knows he is one of the extremely scarce
American scholars who has taken the time to research this unknown area, in an
authentically scholarly way, looking at BOTH sides of the story. This is why when he gives
testimony, his words have weight.
The two professors based their testimony on hearsay,
opinions and discredited sources (like Morgenthau's book). WHY would they take their
valuable time to testify on this issue? WHY would they identify so strongly with the
Armenian "Genocide" and embarrass themselves by exposing their sorrowful
partiality and poor scholarship, when any objective scholar would clearly have room for
doubt based on the mountain of Western and even some Armenian evidence that goes against
the Armenian perspective? If they are so "moral" about attempting to right a
wrong, why are they focusing on this one lone example of Man's Inhumanity to Man,
supported by the millions and millions of
dollars by wealthy Armenians worldwide, when there are so many sad examples of truly
unknown genocides that go begging for recognition?
Suspicious, isn't it?
writing the above, I ran into the paper Dr. Smith's testimony was based on.... and there
was ACTUAL GENOCIDAL EVIDENCE (a telegram). It was my duty to let you in on this
evidence, since I told you I don't intend to hide anything. (Actually, he already
presented it above... it was so ambiguous, this "evidence" didn't even sink in.)
You can read my analysis on this evidence, and further thoughts on these men (particularly
Roger Smith), if you click here.