James Morgan Read's "Atrocity
Propaganda, 1914-1919" (Yale Univ. Press, 1941, reprinted 1976) is an
enlightening work. On p. 187, the author observed:
"Lying is an act of conscious deception. Much of British atrocity
propaganda was unconscious deception built upon erroneous reports and
Yet, when it came to the Armenian chapter, excerpted on this page, Read mainly
preferred to read the British misinformation, and other propagandistic
sources, as on-the-level. Why was this? Justin McCarthy provides a clue,
in his excellent report
on British propaganda:
"...[N]ot long after the war the Wellington House campaign against the
Germans was studied, described, and often censured by scholars. In fact Bryce
and Toynbee together had written a very similar but shorter book about
so-called German Atrocities in Belgium. That book contained the same sort of
thing seen in the Armenian Blue Book: 'X, Y, and Z' and unknown and fraudulent
sources. After the war, the Belgians investigated and found that the book was
almost completely lies. The Belgians had wanted it to be true, but they
reported their findings accurately. Yet no one has looked into the propaganda
directed against the Turks. After all these years, no one has decried this
propaganda. If one reads the basic books on the British Propaganda Ministry,
and there are quite a few books on the subject, they never discuss the
campaign against the Turks, only the Germans. I believe the reason that no one
has researched the topic and uncovered the lies told of the Turks is that no
one cared. They were just Turks."
In other words, the reason boils down to one word: prejudice.
(Here is one example,
examining Lord Bryce's dishonesty, where the case is based on charges against
Germans, and the Turks are once again a non-entity.)
James Morgan Read,
while at least making some attempt at fairness toward the end of his report,
is obviously another of these prejudiced people. The fact that the New
Jerseyite was a Quaker, and the son of a Methodist Minister, most likely did
not help. (He also served as Associate Professor of History at the University
of Louisville back in the 1930s; unfortunately, well before Prof. Justin
McCarthy joined this university's faculty, deprived of potential guidance
regarding what is required of
a true historian.)
When it comes to Turks, they were automatically guilty... because everyone
"knows" Turks are barbarians at heart. And this comes from an author
who is keenly aware of the deception of war propaganda. Dr. Read actually
cites sources as the Blue Book, Lepsius, and most inexcusably, Aram Andonian,
as valid sources incriminating the Turks. And as late as 1941... it's simply
shocking. (Although, on the other hand, what is so shocking about this
attitude? As most of us who know the truth are bitterly aware, these same
sources are still being pointed to as valid today, in the early 21st century.
By the way, for genocide aficionados, evidently Dr. Read was the first
historian to have speculated that the Nazi gas chambers had perhaps not
existed [based on his article appearing in The Christian Century, a
Chicago weekly, under the title "Trials for War Criminals," May 30,
1945]. Remember, those of you who love to apply unfair labels: he was only
speculating during a time when the facts were not known.)
Here we go, with the book excerpt regarding Armenians; note there are two
sets of footnotes, one from the book, and the clickable ones leading to an
analysis of some statements. Thanks to reader M. Mersinoglu.
|P. 216 (partial):
The other atrocity story of prominence in October, 1915, was that of the Armenian
massacres. Although the French took some notice of these events in the Near East, most of
their information came from the British who by reason of their Dardanelles expedition were
more directly concerned with Turkish politics. Although sporadic notices appeared in the
press of both countries from May to September, 1915, and although the real
tribulations of the Armenians began with the policy of wholesale deportations initiated on
April 8,  the intensive preoccupation with the
question of Turco-Armenian relations did not arise until the middle of October, when the
forced migrations were actually drawing to a close. 
From mid-October onward, the “Armenian massacres” were a standard article of
propaganda until they dropped out of sight about the time the United States entered the
War. In those eighteen months the face of the oppressed Armenians was an ever-recurrent
motif; they were a small, oppressed people like the Belgians, and if the alleged German
crimes in Belgium could not be matched for enormity, they were surpassed in quantity by
the Turks. The Times professed to be thoroughly shocked: “We had thought that no
deeper stain than the crimes of Belgium could sully the German ruler and the German
people. We were wrong. The Armenian massacres are an even more appalling example of the
German delight in organized murder and wholesale lust.”  The Turkish people
could not be held responsible for these things. “European travelers have often commended
31. N.D.A.Z., June 7, 1915, commented on a Havas report of Armenian massacres
of May 24. Temps. September 11, 1915, quoted the Daily Telegraph on the
burning of an Armenian village by the Turks in which "all the inhabitants were burned
almost [?] alive." 
32. Great Britain, Foreign Office, The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire,
1915-1916, Documents presented to Viscount Grey of Fallodon, Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs, by Viscount Bryce (London, 1916), p. 645. This important collection of
documents, edited by A. J. Toynbee, is described on p. 218.
33. On November 6, 1915, an order was sent to the local authorities in Turkey to refrain
from further deportations. 
34. Times, September 30, 1915.
made another Declaration, to
honesty and the kindliness of the Turkish
peasantry, and our soldiers have said that they are fair fighters,”  commented
Lord Bryce. The Turkish rulers were different; they were animated by the spirit
of Sultan Abdul Hamid whose formula was: “The way to get rid of the Armenian
question is to get rid of the Armenians.” The culpability of the Germans resulted
from a sin of omission; it was their “callous equanimity,” said Lord Bryce to his
fellow peers, that allowed these things to happen.   Two days later came word that the Germans had protested against the
Turkish actions on August 31— “Turkish methods have sickened even Prussian
stomachs” — but it was pointed out simultaneously that the move should have been
undertaken long before. A week later Lord Bryce, addressing a gathering at the Mansion
House in the interest of a fund for the Armenian survivors, said that the Germans
could have stopped the massacres, had they so desired. 
Mr. Balfour appealed to German-Americans who were anxious to “save what remained of
Germany’s good name,” to “use their influence to check the further continuance
of these purposeless barbarities.”  There was general agreement in England that
Germany was not trying to stop the Armenian massacres for fear of embarrassing her
The accusations against Germany were not confined to sins of omission; direct
complicity in the crimes was also charged. German consuls were charged with having
encouraged some of the worst massacres, German officers were implicated; indeed, in
some of the massacres, it was alleged, German artillery officers had taken direct
part. Charges of active promotion of the Turkish crimes were put in headlines: “German
Aid to Murder.” 
In the meantime Lord Bryce was receiving more information about Turkish misdeeds,
which he released from time to time. 
35. The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, p. xxviii.
36. lbid., p. 14.
37. Times. October 8, 16, 19. I915.
38. Manchester Guardian, October 26, 1915. From August to October the German
government kept warning the Turks to desist, at least if their assurances to Morgenthau,
the American ambassador in Constantinople, can be believed. U.S. Foreign Relations, 1915
Supplement, pp. 985-987. On October 8, 1915, Bernstorff submitted to Lansing the copy of
a memorandum sent by the German government to Turkey on August 9 and of the answer of
the Imperial Ottoman government assuring its ally that measures would be taken to
prevent the repetition of the excesses. Ibid., p. 990. 
39. Times, September 30, November 27, 1915; January 4, February 8, 1916; Temps,
November 30, 1915.
40. Times, December 15, 1915. Many of these accounts were communicated to Bryce
by the American Committee for Armenian and Syrian Relief, which Bryce seemed to consider
reliable and objective.  Bryce wrote to friends
and acquaintances everywhere asking for material. Treatment of Armenians in the
Ottoman Empire, p. xvi.
Storey was a lawyer from
Boston, a city most sympathetic to
Armenians. He hated imperialism,
and championed civil rights. How
interesting that even the most en-
lightened of men rarely questioned
their own anti-Turkish prejudice.
Finally he entrusted Arnold Toynbee, “a young historian of high
academic distinction,” with the task of editing the documents in his possession and
presenting them to the foreign office, which published them as a voluminous Blue Book in
December, 1916. The 150 documents constituted “one long catalogue of horrors for which
hardly any parallel can be found either in ancient or modern history.”  Not only Lord
Bryce but H. A. L. Fisher, Gilbert Murray, Regius Professor of Greek in the University of
Oxford, and Mr. Moorfield Storey, ex-president of the American Bar Association. testified to
the validity of the evidence collected, although Professor Murray spoke of the tendency of
oriental races ‘to use hyperbolical language..” 
No mention of German complicity was made in the Preface of the report written by Lord Bryce,
who asserted that “all that happened in 1915 is in the regular line of Turkish policy.”
Nor did Toynbee in his analytical summary at the end of the volume make any reference to
German inspiration. Statements in the documents themselves, however, definitely ascribed
responsibility to Germany. Because of their anonymity these statements were less impressive.
The Germans were most indignant about this new “Hetzpropaganda,”  although
they had not hesitated during the preceding February to report Moslem charges of atrocity
against the Serbs.  They met the English accusations of Armenian massacres with
countercharges of atrocities committed against the Turks.  The Turks were, in fact,
assiduously turning out counterpropaganda, reaching countries as far distant as Persia and
the United States  with charges that Persian
nationalists were being hanged by “English and Russian savages,” and that a “Persian
Liberal” in Tabriz had been “cut in two with a big knife” at the instigation of the
British consul.  But the Germans could not afford to defend themselves
41. Times, December 14, 1916.
42. The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, p. xxxi.
43. Ibid., pp. xxvi, 18, 637-653.
44. Zeitungskontrolle, Englische Presse. The digest is replete with English accounts of
Armenian atrocities in the latter part of 1915.
45. N.D.A.Z., February 4, 1915.
46. New York World. October 27, 1915, cited by Buchanan, “European Propaganda and
American Public Opinion,” p. 360.
47. D.R.P.P. (November 29, 1915), p. 21.
against these charges merely by saying that the Turks were victims of atrocities too.
When the Times charged that Consul Rössler in Aleppo had directed some of the
massacres, the story was branded a “shameless lie” ; on the contrary, it was stated, the German consuls and
missionaries had done everything in their power to exercise a moderating influence.
Since the Armenians had been disloyal, some punishment had to be inflicted by the
Turkish government, and England, which had never protested against the massacres of
Jews by her Russian ally, had no reason to complain. 
Moreover, said the Kölnische Zeitang, English indignation was being used to
cover up the illegal invasion of Greece, since Belgian atrocities were no longer
sufficiently arousing. In the spring of 1917 a Swedish officer who had been in Armenia
[11b] during the deportations testified that
there had been no cruelties whatsoever involved in the strict measures which the
Turkish government had been forced to take against the Armenians.  This was
welcome testimony, appearing after a long period of silence in the German press as a
result of official instructions reading: “Concerning the Armenian question it is
best to keep silent. The conduct of the Turkish authorities in this matter is not
particularly laudable.”   Obviously
official Germany was disturbed by the actions of its ally, and with reason. It has
become a matter of record that the Turks did pursue a policy of wholesale
extermination against the Armenians. Whereas the estimates of the British were
successively smaller, varying from the figure of 800,000 victims mentioned by Bryce in
his speech in Parliament  to the 200,000 listed in the report of the commission on
Responsibilities at the Peace Conference,  a reliable and documented German
account of 1919 placed the number of those who perished at “approximately one
million.”   A former governor of
Constantinople and Imperial Ottoman naval minister has admitted that the deportations
48. Frankfurter Zeitung, October 8, 1915; N.D.A.Z., October 8, May
49. Mühsam, Wie Wir Belogen Wurden, p. 79. These instructions were issued on
December 23, 1915. On October 7, 1915, instructions had gone out to the German press to
handle the question “with the greatest care” and to stress constantly the fact that
the Turks had been greatly provoked by the Armenians, Ibid., p. 76.
50. Hansard, 5th Series, H. L., XIX, 1003.
51. Violation of the Laws and Customs of War, p. 30. The introduction to these
tables indicates that the figures are not “exhaustive or complete.” Toynbee’s
summary. The Treatment a Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, p. 651, places the
figure at 500,000.
52. Johannes Lepsius. ed., Deutschland und Armenien 1914-1918,
Sammlung diplomatischer Aktenstücke (Potsdam, 1919), p. 1xv.
cost 600,000 lives. This Turkish apologist attempts to palliate the slaughters by
charging the Armenians with having killed more than 1,500,000 Turks and Kurds between
the outbreak of the Russian Revolution and the reoccupation of Erzerum by the Turks at
the end of February, 1918.  
The British deductions concerning Germany’s responsibility contained only a small
amount of truth. Instructions to the German press at the end of 1915 did state that
Germany could not afford to jeopardize her friendly relations with Turkey by mixing in
her internal affairs.  This restraint might be interpreted as a sin of omission.
Whatever indirect responsibility Germany bore, there was certainly no official German
inspiration of or participation in the deportations and massacres. The proof of this
appeared in Toynbee’s summary in the Blue Book, as well as in the documentary
collections of Lepsius and Andonian published after the war.  
To be sure, many of the ordinary people in Turkey thought that the Germans had ordered
the massacres.  Moreover, most Turks assumed, as their German apologists never
tired of repeating, that the Armenians were being punished for their disloyalty and
rebellion. Certain “revolts” of the Armenians had taken place but most of them
came after the deportation policy had started and were the result, not the cause, of
cruelties committed by the Turks. Three minor uprisings took place before the
deportations were initiated. 
53. Djemal Pasha, Memories of a Turkish Statesman 1913-1919 (New
York, 1922), pp. 280-289.
54. Mühsam, p. 76. A month later, on November 10, Bethmann sent a telegram to
Constantinople containing orders to the German representative to make his influence felt
in favor of the Armenians, “mit allem Nachdruck.” Lepsius, op. cit., p. 197.
55. Ibid., pp. lv—lviii, 331-339, brings evidence to refute the three specific
cases mentioned in the British press and official reports. His collection also includes
a mass of material to show that by 1917 at least the German officials in Turkey were
taking heroic measures to alleviate distress among the Armenians. Aram Andonian, Documents
officiels concernant les massacres arménians (Paris, 1920), does not make the
Germans responsible for the massacres at any point.
56. Lepsius, op. cit,. pp. 331-339. Report of Neurath to Bethmann of November 9,
57. N.D.A.Z., June 7, 1915. Frankfurter Zeitung. November 20, 1915, cited by
D.R.F.P., November 30, 1915. The English editor of this digest was struck by the report,
which originated in a Russian paper, “as up to the present the Armenians have always
been referred to as the innocent victims of Turkish persecution.” Djemal Pasha, p.
299, insists that the Armenians at the crucial moment in the Dardanelles campaign “were
ordered by the French and English commanders-in-chief of the Forces in the Eastern
Mediterranean to rise.”
| P. 221:
Two of them were nothing more than rows of gendarmes with deserters. The only one of any
consequence was the trouble in Van — apparently a case of self-defense on the part of the
Armenians.  In all these “revolts” the maximum
losses which the Turks suffered amounted to not more than three hundred soldiers. The oath
of the Mutessarif of Musch at the burial of seven Moslem gendarmes who had been killed was
almost fulfilled: “For every hair of your head, I will have a thousand Armenians
The question of the brutality meted out to the Armenians in addition to the slaughtering may
seem academic. For arousing emotions, however, it was important to stress such aspects even
more than ordinary massacres. Newspapers spoke of “the ordinary way” of getting rid of
women and children as burning them alive,  and Armenian leaders  reported that “the headmen of the villages were subjected to revolting
tortures. Their fingernails and their toenails were forcibly extracted; their teeth were
knocked out, and in some cases their tongues were whittled down.” Bastinadoing men until
they bled to death was not uncommon, according to a report communicated to Lord Bryce by the
American Committee for Armenian and Serbian Relief.  A professor, according to an
account in the Daily Chronicle, had had his hair torn out as well as his fingernails
extracted.  How many of these enormities actually occurred is impossible to say.
Probably some perverted Turks carried third-degree methods to inhuman lengths. It is only
fair to add, however, that the Turks were given a clean bill of health in Parliament during
the Dardanelles campaign. They were praised by an English officer for “the clean, manly
manner in which they fight.”  It is also necessary to add that the general impression
after reading pages of harrowing details concerning such enormities, as gathered together in
the Blue Book, is that most of them were based on hearsay evidence.  Finally, the
testimony of one pro-Turkish Englishman counterbalances
58. Ibid., p. lxix.
59. Temps, November 30, 1915,
60. The Treatment of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, pp. 85, 367.
61. Quoted in Temps, October 11, 1915.
62. Hansard, 5th Series, H. C., LXXV (November 11. 1915), 1446.
63. Almost every page of the report contained phrases such as “some said,” “I was told,”
etc., despite Bryce’s statement that “by far the larger part” of the information came
from eyewitnesses. The Treatment of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, p. xxvii.
somewhat the black record which has been made out to the Turkish account. Mr.
Pickthall points out that:
The Turks have never even, put their case before the world, . . . their language
— to say nothing of their religion —has always been a bar to European
understanding. And so a race which has produced a literature worthy to be compared
with that of ancient Greece (in the opinion of a modern Greek, no partial critic) has
come to be regarded as uncultivated and “incapable of civilization”; a nation
famed for tolerance, to be regarded as fanatical.  
The Armenian atrocities remained a subject for indignation as late as June, 1917, but
the high point of their public interest had been reached in late 1915 and early 1916.
A lull followed, such as had preceded the Caveli case in the previous year. An article
appeared in the Nineteenth Century for September, 1916, which stated that
atrocity stories were no longer the subject of comment:
The Bryce Report came out many months ago, and we talk less and read less now about
German atrocities. When all that it is possible to say about such things has been said
many times over, people cease to speak much about them. But that does not mean that
they have ceased to take account of them. And quite apart from the question whether
these stories are true, they constitute still today, as a matter of undeniable
psychological fact, the most tremendous barrier between the two peoples. . . .
To generalize in such matters was dangerous. The article immediately following
described in vivid detail a long series of German atrocities in France;  and the
outcry over Belgian deportations was beginning. It continued at white heat for the
next six months.
64. Marmaduke Pickthall, “Massacres and the Turks: the Other Side,” Foreign
Affairs, July, 1920, Special Supplement, p. xv.
65. Edwyn Bevan, “The Truth about Lies,” Nineteenth Century, LXXX (September,
66. Wilson Crewdson, “French Heroes—German Barbarism.” Nineteenth Century,
of Certain Points
1. The temporary policy of "deportations" (which means banishment
outside a country's borders; the Armenians were forced to resettle to another part of the
country, and were not exiled) did not begin "wholesale" until May 27, 1915,
legally going into effect on June 1. The first sign of the resettlement may be seen with
this May 2, 1915 telegram. Perhaps the
author is referring to limited population movements that took place earlier, including
Muslims who needed to be moved out as a response to conditions of war. Obviously,
"April 8" can not signify the beginning of the "genocide" (a
propagandistic synonym for "resettlement" or "relocation") because as
everyone knows, "April 24" famously takes the credit for that.
2. Kind of corroborating what even Vahakn
Dadrian has written, pointing to
1916, as to "when the genocide had all but run its course.” There were limited
relocations that still kept going on, based on the whim of local officials, but most of the
movements were already done with by the end of 1915. Makes one wonder what Armenian
propagandists are talking about when they commonly refer to the "Armenian Genocide of
3. Even an author sophisticated in the ways of
war propaganda is giving credence to the reports published in newspapers of the Turks'
wartime enemies. Not that these newspapers needed the excuse of war to publish accounts
thoroughly hostile to the Turks. Western readers were already in the habit of clamoring for
sensationalistic stories of barbaric Turks murdering innocent Christians, at least since the
days of the late 19th century, what one Armenophile (Richard Davey) labeled as "the
great Armenian horror boom." Practically none of these propagandistic newspaper
reports came firsthand; they were nearly all based on hearsay. But even Davey warned, "surely it is not for us to
endorse falsehoods and exaggerations without taking the trouble to verify them."
As Kamuran Gurun put it in The Armenian File: "...[T]he
religious factor and political considerations have helped to establish an anti-Turkish
climate. When conscious propaganda is added to this, then not only do we have biased news,
but inaccurate news as well."
4. The first order to stop the relocations
actually came in August, 1915. (Source: Guenter Lewy, The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman
Turkey: A Disputed Genocide, 2005). Ironically, for a government accused of carrying out
a policy of a "Final Solution," it was the weakness of the central government that prevented these orders from
being followed efficiently, forcing Talat Pasha to send out several telegrams into 1916,
reminding locals to cut it out.
5. Pro-Armenians, whether they be Lord Bryce or
James Morgan Read, love to make simplistic conclusions without taking real history into
account, or without insisting upon factual evidence. What happened to the Armenians in
1894-96 and 1915 did not happen in a vacuum (as the following exchange sheds light: "'Do
you believe that any massacres would have taken place if no Armenian revolutionaries had
come into the country and incited the Armenian population to rebellion?' I [Sydney
Whitman, from his book, "Turkish Memories," London, 1914] asked
Mr. Graves [The British consul]. 'Certainly not,' he replied. 'I do not believe that
a single Armenian would have been killed.'"); if it was the intention of
the rulers to get rid of the Armenians in both cases, the majority of Armenians could not
have survived. As for the Germans, they are off the hook regarding the massacres of
"1915." But what makes the author think, given that the Germans were for all
intents and purposes in charge of the Ottoman military, that they didn't not have a hand
with the idea of moving out the dangerous Armenians from critical war zones... drawing upon
the Germans' own historical experience?
6. Here, the erroneous assumption is being made
that the Ottoman government was purposely in charge of exterminating the Armenians. No proof
of such exists. If anything, internal Ottoman documents never meant to be publicized suggest
the opposite: the central government took steps to safeguard Armenian lives and properties.
The reason why they did not always succeed is because the ones who committed crimes were
ones who had taken matters into their own hands. If the Ottoman government could not control
these forces, why would anyone think the Germans would have been able to?
7. And the Ottoman government meant to do so
wholeheartedly. Already having directives in place regarding crimes against Armenians (One
appropriated document may be found in the British archives [cited in Salahi
Sonyel's Shocking new documents, London, 1975: F.O. 371/9158 E.5523], where Article
21 read: "Should emigrants be attacked on their journey or in camps, the assailants
will be immediately arrested, and sent to martial law court." Results of these courts.), Ottoman
leaders were caught as off guard regarding the massacres that took place, and took immediate
steps to resolve the situation. (For example, a 14 June 1915 message tells us
they learned of 500 Armenians evacuated from Erzurum to have been killed by tribes
between Erzurum and Erzinjan: "Incidents resulting in such killings will not be
allowed to occur. For this reason it is absolutely necessary that every possible measure is
taken to protect the Armenians against attacks by tribes and villagers, and that those who
attempt murder and violence are severely punished.") The problem was
that there was a desperate life or death war going on, where every man was needed at
the multiple fronts. Adequate resources and manpower could not be allotted to adequately
deal with the problem.
8. Naturally Bryce was going to consider the
opinions of the missionaries and other bigots involved with the forerunner of the Near East
Relief as reliable, because Bryce himself was a hopelessly partisan "Christian"
bigot. "Bryce was aware of many biblical connections and religious
legends and traditions... Bryce believed that the Turkish government ‘deserves to die’."
Akaby Nassibian, "Britain and the Armenian Question, 1915-1923," 1984, pp.
9. The one thing that Turks are awful at is propaganda. This very book lends
witness to the fact, as you'll read on "p. 222": "The
Turks have never even, put their case before the world, . . . their language — to say
nothing of their religion —has always been a bar to European understanding." If
Turks were good at propaganda, the "Armenian genocide" would not have become the
accepted wisdom that it is today. Yet Read is making it seem as though this Turkish
"counterpropaganda" had an effect in the ... United States?? How could it have
even reached the United States? (The British cut the German cable to the U.S., maintaining
the Entente view to be heard exclusively.) Did the Ottoman government have a kind of
Wellington House branch operating on U.S. soil, as the British maintained with their own
propaganda division? (By the way, how do we know the statements made about the Persians were
10. And a shameless lie it surely was. Rossler
was a friend of Johannes Lepsius, and exhibited a great Christian sympathy toward Armenians.
As quoted in a Taner Akcam paper, for example,
the German consul accepted at face value Armenian propaganda claims such as there having
been 2.5 million pre-war Armenians, that the convoys were at least 75% decimated,
and that the bulk of the Armenian women and girls were carried off to Muslim
11. An excellent point: the fact that the
British did not give two beans to the massacres perpetrated by ally Russia against the Jews provides huge insight
as to how genuinely Britain cared for the welfare of their "Seventh" wartime ally, the
Armenians. As Propagandist Arnold Toynbee himself shed light on Britain's ulterior motives:
"The treatment of Armenians by the Turks is the biggest asset of his
Majesty’s Government, to solve the Turkish problem in a radical manner, and to have it
accepted by the public." (Memorandum dated 26 September 1919, F.O.
371/3404/162647, p. 2)
11b. The Swedish officer was not in
"Armenia," which did not exist at the time, but in eastern Anatolia and probably
in Mesopotamia, having followed parts of the Euphrates River. (Assuming we are talking about
this Swede.) Yet another indication of
bias, providing inaccurate geographical distinctions using "Christian code,"
instead of the reality.
12. The German press kept so
"silent" regarding the Armenians, that when an American war correspondent turned
to the German press to report the real non-genocidal truth (out of frustration, since Allied
censors disallowed the truth), the Christian-sympathetic German press refused the non-genocidal reports.
13. Note how Read strives to cast doubt upon
the 200,000 mortality figure, while attempting to legitimize religious fanatic Lepsius'
ridiculous 1 million. (Incidentally, the Armenophile German Consul Rossler, from footnote 10
above, bought the British high-end claim of 800,000, not far from what his pal Lepsius
concluded.) What Read provides in his footnote 51, Toynbee's guess of 500,000, best
approximates the truth. (Based on a simple subtraction, as Armenians themselves concede
there were one million survivors, and most "neutral" estimates agree on a pre-war
population of 1.5 million.)
14. And here we have Read's attempt to call
Djemal Pasha a liar, even though the vilified CUP official was amazingly honest in his memoirs, for the most part. For example, Djemal went
with the more-or-less truthful Armenian mortality figure of 600,000. (Since Djemal picked
the upper range of Read's mortality figures, one would have thought such would have awakened
a dispassionate scholar to investigate the other end of Djemal's claim. Djemal, by the way,
not having had anything to do with the Armenian "deportation" policy, appears to
have been guessing; he prefaces the 600,000 figure with "let us assume," and also
asserts 1.5 million was the total for the deported. A few pages later, his wording is
"it is said" for not only the 600,000, but for the figure in the paragraph below,
Muslims killed by Armenians.) The reason is that the partisan author is horrified to
consider that the poor, innocent Armenians could have been responsible for slaughters of the
"don't count as humans" Turks; the fact that Dr. Read read the testimony of the
Russian officer Lt.-Col. Twerdokhleboff, regarding the
inhumanity of the Armenians (provided in detail Djemal Pasha), and casually ignored it all,
is very telling.
(Djemal was also off in his other calculation for 1.5 million victims of the Armenians;
Armenians, along with some Russian help, did away with over half a million Ottoman "others" who did not fit into the
preferred racial profile of those who would go on to inhabit the Armenians' hopeful future
independent state. Since most Armenians, as well as most of the 2.5 million other Ottomans,
died of famine, disease and other war-related reasons, what this means is that many more
"Turks" were murdered by Armenians than the other way around.)
15. The author Read does a great job of
displaying his unapologetic partisanship, along with damaging his credibility, by citing the
Andonian forgeries as actual evidence. Even the
British (Malta Tribunal) and Germans (Tehlirian
trial) rejected these crude forgeries in 1921, yet
here is Read pointing to their credibility a full generation later. (But everything is
relative; it's not as embarrassing as a
certain "renowned scholar's" doing so over three generations later.)
16. Yes, there is no going beyond
"Turkish cruelties" in James Morgan Read's partisan mind. There were many revolts
taking place before "April 24," that is, before "the
deportation policy had started"... the reason why the relocation program militarily
needed to be necessitated in the first place. Here are only a few, taking place in Van. The first of the Van revolts
broke out just days after Russia had declared war, as this New York Times report tells us. Makes
sense; the Armenians were armed and ready,
waiting for their opportunity to strike, while the Ottoman nation was at its weakest during
war, just as their terrorist organization charters (at least in the case of the Hunchaks)
had specified. (The "Three minor
uprisings" is a superb example of the durability of Armenian propaganda. The exact
claim was utilized in PBS 's 2006
17. Once again, if the Van revolts took place
before the "deportations," this could not be called a case of
"self-defense." A 1915 French
newspaper report clearly spelled out that Van operations took place "at the
beginning of the war," and referred to the matter as an "insurgency."
Ambassador Morgenthau himself is on
record, in a May 25, 1915 telegram to his government, for pointing out 10,000-25,000
Armenian fighters at Van... two days before the "deportations" were ordered! Note
Read goes on to say here that "In all these 'revolts' the maximum losses
which the Turks suffered amounted to not more than three hundred soldiers." Horrifying!
In Van alone, the Armenians cruelly murdered tens of thousands of people. Note also,
however, that Read cautiously added the word "apparently" before claiming Van's
"self-defense." He is at last beginning to find the objective part of himself...
18. Genuine truth-seekers are not going to
accept the word of "Armenian leaders," scandalously on record for unscrupulous
Dashnak-style "end justifies the means" tactics, including brazenly lying for Hai
Tahd, the Armenian Cause. Nor can second or third-hand obtained newspaper reports be
deemed as credible. At this point of his chapter, Dr. Read is finally shedding light on the
other side of the coin, even to the point of exposing the hearsay of the Blue Book, a source
he has used numerous times in this chapter to support his arguments (thus discrediting
himself!). But he finally salvages his reputation somewhat, by demonstrating a little
objectivity, and for that he deserves credit.