Toynbee confessed in a later work, The Western Question in Greece and
Turkey (1922, p. 50), that the “Blue Book” was a piece of war propaganda.
Foreign Offices issue so many falsehoods that they end by believing in them
themselves — a case of auto-suggestion."
Foreign Affairs Magazine, Britain's
"Journal of International Understanding," July 1920, p. 87. A marvelous
explanation as to why Toynbee, despite being fully aware of the crock he was a part of
while working for Wellington House, still affirmed the validity of an Armenian
"genocide" toward the end of his years.
"The Great War and the Tragedy of Anatolia: Turks and
Armenians in the Maelstrom of Major Powers"
by Selahi Sonyel
War-time disinformation and "The Blue Book"
The publication, in 1916, of the British war-time disinformation 'report' under the title
THE TREATMENT OF ARMENIANS IN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE, 1915-1916, which came to be known as
"The Blue Book", was masterminded by Arnold Toynbee, a member of the Masterman
propaganda bureau in London, on the instigation of Viscount James Bryce. Lord Bryce had
been inciting the Armenian militants to rebellion since the publication of his book
entitled TRANSCAUCASIA AND ARARAT in 1877, in which he remarked: "Why ...do the
Armenians not rise in rebellion...as their forefathers did against the Seleucids and the
Persians?" (Bryce, p.344).
Following the revolt of Ottoman Armenians in 1914 - 1915, on the instigation by the Allies
(mainly by Russia, France and Britain), in order to dismember the Ottoman state and the
eruption of a civil war between the Armenians and the Turks, the British Intelligence and
Information Services, some political and military advisers and Armenophile enthusiasts
such as Lord Bryce, Arnold Toynbee, Aneurin Williams, and others, urged the British
government to publicise the Turco-Armenian incidents such as "Armenian
massacres." Internally, it was hoped that this would arouse, among the British
public, more interest in "the little allies of the Entente" - the Armenians — as David Lloyd George described them,
and hatred towards the Turks. Externally, it would divert international attention from the
atrocious persecution of the Jews by Britain's ally, Russia, which had intensified during
the war. It would also stimulate the neutral countries with pro-Entente tendencies, such
as the USA, Greece and Hashemite Arabs, to join the fray.
Harold D. Laswell, in his well-known book entitled PROPAGANDA TECHNIQUES IN THE WORLD WAR,
published in New York in 1927, observes that the Allies indulged in extensive propaganda
(disinformation) during the First World War in order to establish friendly relations with
neutral states, to convince those states of the justice of their war aims and to procure
their support. The Allies knew that the best way to draw the neutrals to their side was by
portraying their enemies as "inhuman creatures". (Laswell, pp.62, 66, 72, and
195-197). That is exactly what "The Blue Book" aimed to do.
The task of collecting the materials, mainly from Armenian sources, and of writing the
"report", was undertaken by the well-known Turcophobe Viscount Bryce, and by
Arnold Toynbee. On how the propaganda material was collected and masterfully utilised, see
Arthur Ponsonby FALSEHOOD IN WARTIME, New York, 1928, and Michael Sanderson and Philip M.
Taylor, BRITISH PROPAGANDA DURING THE FIRST WORLD WAR, 1914 - 1918, London, 1983.
Armenian researcher Akaby Nassibian observes that Aneurin Williams, his associates, and
the British Foreign Office, were anxious to have the "report" published in order
to stimulate the Allies' war effort. (Nassibian, BRITAIN AND THE ARMENIAN QUESTION, London, 1984.) "The Blue
Book" turned out to be one of the most successful war-time propaganda exercises of
the British government. It used it in inculcating hatred towards, and denigrating, its
enemies — the Turks — at the time, before world opinion, particularly the Islamic
world, in promises, and in effecting the major coup of finally winning over the wavering
pro-Entente neutrals, in particular the USA.
Most of the material used in "The Blue Book" and in other similar publications
was supplied to Lord Bryce by the U.S. Ambassador in Istanbul, Henry Morgenthau, who, not
knowing Turkish, relied heavily on his Armenian aides. (See Heath W. Lowry, THE STORY BEHIND AMBASSADOR MORGENTHAU'S STORY,
Istanbul, 1990). Bryce passed on the information to Toynbee, "the distinguished
historian and member of Wellington House, who", according to Sanders and Taylor,
"became something of a specialist in atrocity propaganda". (Sanders and Taylor,
There is no doubt that "The Blue Book" was the result of collecting together
various "documents" without having thoroughly checked their accuracy, and
gathered mainly from Armenian sources, or from people sympathetic to the Armenians, i.e.
from second or third-hand sources, mostly with the help of Morgenthau. It was issued as an
official publication in order to give it more authenticity and credibility.
Sonyel ("Sari Gelin")
The work was completed in a short time, and definitely in less than
a year. How authentic and reliable a work of "historical scholarship" it is,
scholars themselves must judge. Toynbee himself, at first, considered it as "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". (See Public Record Office, Foreign
Office document FO 71/3404/162647, p.2). Much later Toynbee disclosed that the British
government had published "The Blue Book" for a special purpose, of which he was
unaware at the time. He said that the Russian armies, when retreating across the
Polish-Lithuanian frontier in the spring of 1915, had committed many barbarities against the Jews there, and the
advancing German armies had tried to exploit them. The British government had been
seriously perturbed. In February 1916 THE NEW YORK AMERICAN had advised all American
people to demand that "Christian England and Christian France restrain the savagery
of their barbarous allies". (Toynbee, ACQUAINTANCES, pp.149 - 152, THE NEW YORK
AMERICAN, 2.2.1916). Toynbee believed that the British government was worried lest the
American Jewry retaliate against the Allies by throwing its weight against Britain in the
debate then going on in the USA. Therefore the Turco-American incidents in Anatolia had
provided the British government with "counter-propaganda" material against the
Central powers. (Toynbee, ibid., pp.149 - 152).
Both Henry Herbert Asquith and Stanley Baldwin, in their joint memorial presented in 1924
to the then Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald, stated in no uncertain terms that "The
Blue Book" was "widely used for Allied propaganda in 1916-17, and had an
important influence upon American opinion and the ultimate decision of President Woodrow
Wilson to enter the war". (See Mosa Anderson, NOEL BUXTON: A LIFE, London, 1952,
pp.81 and 110; see also Bodleian Library, Toynbee Papers, box on Armenian Memorial",
Thus, "The Blue Book", as "masterpiece" of British wartime propaganda,
had a devastating effect. Its wicked influence is still extant as the book is being abused
by Armenian activists in perpetuating their hatred towards the Turks, and by certain
naïve scholars. Its success lay in the fact that it was based on "atrocity"
stories. British propaganda was geared towards such stories, real, exaggerated or even
fabricated. (See Lucy Masterman, C.F.G.MASTERMAN, 1939, p.298); because disinformers could
flog them to journalists and correspondents, who would then flash them under banner
headlines in their journals. (see also Sidney Whitman, TURKISH MEMORIES, London 1914,
pp.120-121). Arthur Ponsonby explains that "the injection of the poison of hatred
into men's minds by means of falsehood is a greater evil in wartime than the actual loss
of life, the defilement of the human soul is worse than the destruction of the human
body". (Ponsonby, op.cit., p.18).
One of the most notorious "atrocity stories" of the entire war was the so-called
"corpse-conversation factory", where the Germans were accused of boiling down
bodies to make soap. The story was completely fabricated
— it was finally exposed in 1925 when it was discussed in the
House of Commons. (HANSARD, 5th Session, vol.188, 24.1.1925, pp.147-148). Most of the
wartime "atrocity stories" were fabricated, or exaggerated tremendously; so was
the myth of the "deliberate extermination of the Ottoman Armenians in 1915."
James Morgan Read observes: "Lying is an act of conscious deception. Much of British
atrocity propaganda was unconscious deception built upon erroneous reports and
impressions". (ATROCITY PROPAGANDA, 1914 - 19, Yale, 1941, p.187). It was the British
government itself which, between 1914 and 1918 had demonstrated to the world the enormous
power of propaganda, (Sanders and Taylor, p.265) a legacy which later propagandists
What a great article by Professor Salahi
Sonyel... what invaluable and impartial Western sources. (If a Western source
vindicates Turks, you can be sure they are impartial... since Westerners have grown
up with a negative image of Turks, and have no reason to be in love with Turks.)
Many I have never heard of.
Professor Salahi Sonyel
was selected as the Turkish scholar to be examined by Gwynne Dyer, when he looked at
both sides of the genocide coin in Turkish 'Falsifiers' and Armenian 'Deceivers'.
If Dyer came up with any falsification by Sonyel, I couldn't see it.... his main
gripe seemed to have been summarized in the following lines: "Sonyel's
extreme partisan stance is more obtrusive in his use of language than of facts. His
conclusion, though offensively phrased, is partly defensible at least in
essence..." Then he turns his attention to the Armenians. You can read his work here.
|'The British have to apologize'
The Blue Book (edited)
Ret. Ambassador (Sukru) Elekdag: UK should apologize to Turkey about Armenian genocide
* Elekdag says Armenian genocide claims stemmed from the 'Blue Book,' published by the
British in 1916, based on groundless and false documents. 'No other publication damaged
our country to date as much as this book did'
* 'Accusing Turkey of carrying out genocide against the Armenians, this book encouraged
terrorism and led to the death of numerous innocent people'
* 'It's a crime against humanity and a murder to poison the opinions of nations, turn them
into foes and pave the way for hatred, malice and revenge to pass on to generations. In
this respect, we expect the British Parliament and government to declare that the Blue
Book is groundless and apologize to Turkey'
* 'The Turkish Parliament should deal with this case and pursue it to enable the British
Parliament to declare the book groundless. Our government should present an official
request to Britain'
* 'American historian professor Justin McCarthy found an incredible document in British
archives a short while ago. This document put forth that the Armenian genocide claim was a
great lie made up by the British Intelligence Organization's "War Propaganda Secret
Bureau" based on groundless documents prepared during World War I'
* 'The Ottoman government never had a decision, plan or will to carry out systematic
genocide against the Armenian nation or annihilate them'
Turkish Daily News, 27 April 2003
The claim that the Armenians were subjected to genocide in 1915, in the last days of the
Ottoman Empire, came to the agenda once again on April 24, which is marked in the West as
"the anniversary of Armenian genocide."
The Armenian diaspora's efforts to enable those western parliaments to pass decisions
condemning the genocide have never ended. The U.S. comes first among these countries.
Retired Ambassador, Republican People's Party (CHP) Istanbul deputy and parliamentary
foreign affairs committee member Sukru Elekdag told the TDN that the Russian, Canadian,
Greek, Belgian, Italian Parliaments, European Council Parliamentarians' Assembly and the
EU European Parliament passed resolutions recognizing Armenian genocide claims one after
another in recent years. The legislative bodies of Argentina and Lebanon also took similar
decisions. Armenian terrorist organization ASALA ceased its terrorist actions in 1984
after it massacred 42 Turks including 36 diplomats and their families. It killed five
ambassadors, four consul generals and one military attache. Elekdag thinks that the terror
incidents were the first phase of Armenian radicals' three-staged plan. He stresses that
the Armenian problem was brought to the agenda with the terror incidents, while a strategy
aiming to enable the world to recognize the Armenian genocide is being followed at the
second stage. Elekdag says the Armenians will demand high compensation from Turkey in the
third stage, which would in turn constitute the legal basis for Armenia's demands for
land. Elekdag responded to TDN's questions as follows:
TDN: What do you think about the claims that the Armenians were subjected to
genocide in the last period of the Ottoman Empire when you look at the issue objectively?
Elekdag: This incident, which has tried to be recognized as "genocide,"
is not related with this concept since the Ottoman government never had a decision, plan
or will to carry out systematic genocide against the Armenian nation or annihilate them.
It's not because of their ethnic roots or religious beliefs that certain parts of the
Armenian nation was forced to migrate. The reasons behind the fact that the Armenians were
subjected to "relocation" can be listed as follows: 1-They cooperated with the
Russians who invaded Ottoman lands during the war, 2-They helped the enemy by forming
voluntary troops, 3-They rebelled from time to time, 4-They arranged armed attacks against
villages of the Muslim population, 5-They claimed the lives of soldiers defending the
country on the war front. All these were experienced in a period when the Ottoman state
was in a war of life or death. Relocation was a legitimate and legally right precaution in
the framework of the right to protect the presence of the state in that period as the
Armenians betrayed the state by cooperating with the enemy and arranged large-scale armed
attacks which endangered the country's defense.
TDN: It's claimed that the Armenian incurred losses of lives during relocation...
Elekdag: It's true that the Armenians incurred losses during clashes and
"relocation" in eastern Anatolia. However, we should not forget that the
Armenian gangs, which revolted with the start of war in eastern Anatolia, massacred the
Turkish and Muslim population as well. The feelings of hatred and revenge, which rose to a
peak between the communities, and the government's failure to provide security in the war
environment, were influential in the relocation. This situation led to serious flaws in
the transport of convoys during relocation, which in turn hurt the Armenians. Lack of
vehicles, fuel, food and medicine, bad weather conditions and epidemics such as typhus
created severe harm to the Turks as well as the Armenians. In the light of these facts,
it's unveiled that the claims that the Armenians were subjected to genocide are
TDN: What's the situation in legal terms?
Elekdag: The genocide concept is defined in the "Convention on the Prevention
and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide", which went into effect in 1951:
"Genocide is the act committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a
national, ethnic, racial or religious group." However, it's obvious that the Ottoman
government never had such a plan to destroy the Armenians in whole or in part. Despite all
their efforts in the past 88 years, the Armenians could never put forth a valid document
proving such a will or plan. As a matter of fact, famous scientist and historian Bernard
Lewis said in his article published in Le Monde in 1993: There's no valid proof that the
Ottoman government had a plan aiming mass destruction against the Armenian nation. The
Turks had legitimate reasons to resort to relocation since the Armenians were fighting
against the Turks in alliance with Russia which invaded Ottoman lands. These facts refute
the claims that the Armenians were subjected to genocide. The allied forces, which invaded
the Ottoman Empire after the war, wanted to try the ruling Unity and Progress Party
administrators because of the massacre against the Armenians but failed to find any
documents to bring an accusation against the Malta
TDN: How did this event take place?
Elekdag: The British invasion administration in Istanbul arrested 144 Turks
including ministers, politicians, governors and high-ranking officials and bureaucrats on
allegations of massacre and various crimes depending on the reports of Armenian
Patriarchate and exiled them to Malta. However, it's understood thereafter that these
reports were just a propaganda tool and that they could not be used as evidence in the
court. Upon this development, the British invasion administration in Istanbul inspected
all state archives of the Ottoman Empire and carried out intense interrogations. Despite
this, they could not find a single piece of evidence proving the massacre claims. The
British applied to the American government in despair. America did not fight against the
Ottoman Empire during World War I, thus sustaining its relations. The American diplomats
and consulate officials in Turkey carefully followed the Armenian relocation and provided
humanitarian aid to these relocated Armenians. There must have been records in the
American archives if there had been a planned mass massacre against the Armenians.
However, no document accusing the Turks of committing a massacre against the Armenians
could be found in these archives. In this case, those exiled to Malta were acquitted and
released, which in turn proved that the Armenian genocide claims were groundless.
TDN: How were claims of genocide kept on the agenda despite all these facts?
Elekdag: A short while ago, U.S. historian professor Justin McCarthy, found a
document in the British archives. The document proves that the claims of Armenian genocide
were made up of lies based on documents prepared during World War I, by the "War
Propaganda Secret Bureau" under the British Intelligence Agency. This Propaganda
Bureau had worked at Wellington House until the end of the war. When the war ended the
British government had all documents burned and destroyed. However, the document found by
McCarthy survived and was left in an archive box where nobody got hold of it. The Secret
Propaganda Bureau was administered by Lord Bryce. The one who prepared the baseless
documents for publishing was historian Arnold Toynbee who later became world famous.
----- False documents by the British and the Blue Book-----
TDN: What could be the reasons behind Britain preparing false documents?
Elekdag: The reason for Britain having these artificial documents prepared was to
exploit the compassionate feelings of the American public towards Armenians and thus
enable the U.S. to enter the war as quickly as possible. Another aim was to create grounds
for an Armenian state to be established under the rule of Britain and France in Eastern
Anotolia, following the expected fall of the Ottoman Empire. By taking the Armenians on
their side, Britain and France were calculating to hinder Russia's strategy of reaching
the Mediterranean by invading Ottoman lands. The artificial documents that I referred to
earlier were compiled in a thick book titled "Treatment of Armenians during the
Ottoman Empire, 1915-1916" published by the British Government in 1916 with the
approval of the House of Commons and distributed worldwide. This publication, also known
as "The Blue Book," introduces Turks to the world as people who are inhuman,
open to all evil, bloodthirsty and whose feelings of dignity, conscience and mercy have
TDN: What are the claims in "The Blue Book?"
Elekdag: The Blue Book puts forward that "relocation" is an ethnic
destruction plan designed by the Ottoman government. It includes false reports and
documents mentioning brutality, mass massacre and cruelty applied to Armenians under this
plan. It is certain that The Blue Book had a strong effect on the war. Just so, with
reference to the statements by the then British ministers, it is a fixed fact that The
Blue Book was an initial factor in President Wilson's decision for America to enter the
war. This abhorred book published in 1916 forms the bases of the Armenian genocide claims.
No other publication in the history of the Turkish Republic has produced this much harm.
Assuming The Blue Book reflecting the facts, tens of thousands of books and articles
written on the Armenian genocide since 1916 enabled the slander and blackening campaign to
continue against Turks. Despite its falsity being revealed, the Armenian propaganda
institutions republished The Blue Book in England at the end of 2000 and introduced it to
the media at a meeting where members of the House of Lords were also present. Remzi Gur, a
businessman who felt uneasy of the situation, organized a dinner conference for 250 people
hosted by Lord Ahmed in the premises of the British House of Lords building with the
approval of our London Consulate. I myself and professor Nevzat Yalcintas (now a member of
the Justice and Development Party), a dear friend of mine, attended this meeting where
many members of the House of Lords and House of Commons together with representatives of
the media were present and addressed the visitors.
TDN: What was your speech about?
Elekdag: I stated that it was now openly revealed that The Blue Book consist of
false documents and in spite of this the British media still continuously referred to this
book to accuse Turkey of genocide. Furthermore, I reminded that during the 1920 British
invasion of Istanbul the British deported Turks whom they accused of Armenian genocide to
Malta and upon no evidence, the defendants were released. I asked them, "The Blue
Book was published in 1916. Why wasn't it referred to, to convict the people exiled to
----- 'The British have to apologize' -----
TDN: Why do you think they didn't refer to the Blue Book? Even though it was based
on false documents wasn't it possible in those times for them to use it?
Elekdag: The Blue Book couldn't have been used because it consisted of false and
fabricated documents. Because according to the opinion of the prosecutor of the British
Kingdom, the claims and documents in the Blue Book were too baseless and untrue to be
accepted as evidence in the British Court. Today, without giving any to discussions it has
been proved that there had been a slander and humiliation campaign organized against Turks
85 years ago during the war and with this aim the Blue Book — full of false
documents — had been published. Despite this, today the British media still refers
to this book to accuse Turkey of genocide. The thesis, research and books written on the
history of that period still takes quotes from the Blue Book.
Accusing Turkey of genocide, this book encouraged terror at one stage and caused the death
of many innocent people. It still creates enemies among people and destroys peace and
confidence. It is a crime of humanity and murder to poison opinions of nations and
make enemies of them, causing hatred and revenge that will continue for generations.
For this reason we expect the British Parliament and the government to declare the
baselessness of the Blue Book and to apologize to Turkey. I proposed this in that meeting.
During World War I, the British intelligence service published a book on Germans boiling
their enemies to make soap, depending on the statements of dozens of witnesses and
secretly taken photos, and made the world believe that this was the truth. When after
the war it was revealed that these were lies, the British parliament accepted the truth in
a statement they made in 1936 and apologized to Germany.
The Turkish Parliament should put forward this case and follow up the issue regarding the
baselessness of the Blue Book published with the approval of the British parliament and
its declaration. Our government should make official demands to Britain regarding the
issue. A statement by the British parliament or the government making a statement on the
issue will be a development to refute claims of Armenian genocide.
Ankara --- TDN Parliament Bureau
Thanks to turkisharmenians.cjb.net
Holdwater: Say, that's pretty interesting that the British
apologized to the Germans, regarding their false Blue Book directed against the Germans.
Will the British similarly apologize to the Turks? I'm not holding my breath... although
that would be the gentlemanly thing to do, given the terrible harm this deceitful book has
produced... and is still continuing to produce.
What WAS that important document Professor Justin
McCarthy found in the British archives? I would love to know.
Ex-Ambassador to America Sukru Elekdag has done a
great job over the years refuting the Falsified Genocide, sometimes entirely on his
lonesome. A study by him refuting Turkish Turncoat Halil Berktay may be found here, and Dr. Dennis Papazian chose to
do battle with an Elekdag letter that has been rebutted here.
Sarafian Defends the Blue Book
Blue Book was compiled to a high academic standard."
(From an interview in Virgul (Issue 95, May 2006), the full text of which may
be accessed at armenews.com.)
OSMAN KOKER : If I remember right your name was first heard in Turkey in the year
1995 when your research at the Ottoman Archives was interrupted by the officials
there. In the past few years your name is mentioned in connection with the “Treatment
of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire 1915-1916”, known as the "Blue Book".
At the conference in the Istanbul University on 15-17 March you made a presentation
about the Blue Book. Why did you choose the Blue Book as your topic ?
ARA SARAFIAN : I chose this subject because it is topical in Turkey, and because the
Blue Book issue reflects the disturbing face of the official Turkish thesis on the
Armenian Genocide. The whole case against the Blue Book, according to the official
Turkish thesis, relies on deliberate misinformation about the subject. This is why I
call many of my antagonists “denier” of the Armenian Genocide rather than people
I disagree with.
O.K. : How was the Blue Book prepared ?
A.S. : The Blue Book was originally compiled as a report. We do not know how the
decision was taken to request such a report, but certainly we do know that its
compilers, Arnold Toynbee and James Bryce, acted in good faith when putting it
together. We can make th[ese] assertions because we have Toynbee’s working papers
from this period (including his correspondence with Bryce), as well as his later
published works where he talks about the Blue Book and the Armenian Genocide.
O.K. : What are the criteria employed in deciding to include a witness account in
the book ? Do you think these criteria are reliable ?
A.S. : The key criteria for the inclusion of reports in the Blue Book was that
sources had to be authentic primary records (eye-witness accounts). Most of these
reports were from a neutral United States, which had its consulates in the interior
of the Ottoman Empire until April 1917. These consuls reported what they saw around
them, and they also forwarded other reports written by Americans and non-Americans
in these regions, such as the letters of American, German, or Swiss missionaries.
Given these source[s] of information, Toynbee and Bryce did not doubt the
originality of these accounts from the Ottoman Empire, and they judged their value
as primary sources on a record by record basis.
I think the criteria used by Toynbee and Bryce to gather and assess their materials
were creditworthy under the circumstances. They even made provisions for possible
errors creeping in by basing their case on the weight of all the evidence without
relying on one or two documents. They also, for example, made sure that, the core
narrative of events rested on the evidence of Americans, Germans and other
foreigners, in case the “native evidence” (those from Armenian or Assyrian
sources) may have overstated what they saw.
In fact, when they did so, they realised that the strongest reports were provided by
non-Armenians, and that the “native evidence” merely provided additional
Sarafian was behind "The Uncensored Version of the Blue
Book," put out by his Gomidas organization, which was briefly covered in TAT's
"Arnold Toynbee and His Blue
Books" page. By "uncensored," he means the identities of the
anonymous Blue Book sources have been made available, through the use of Toynbee's
"We do not know how the decision was taken to request such a report,"
Sarafian tells us, but the answer couldn't be clearer; Lord Bryce headed a section
of Wellington House, Britain's notorious propaganda division, whose purpose
was to dehumanize the enemy. It certainly served the purpose of devout
Christians Bryce and Toynbee to utilize any and all corrupt information to
demonstrate Turks came from another planet. (Prof. McCarthy instructs: "What
happened was the Propaganda Bureau asked Bryce for a propaganda volume, and said,
'We have this man Toynbee here who is pretty good. He can put it together for you.'
And that is exactly what happened.")
And can you believe Sarafian's assertion that Bryce and Toynbee acted in "good
faith"? If they had acted in good faith, they would have considered all
relevant information, not simply the propagandistic variety. But of course, they
were beholden to present exclusively the propagandistic view, because they were
working for their Majesty's propaganda division, and Toynbee could not have
been clearer when he dismissed his work in later years as "war propaganda."
When Toynbee wrote in 1919 that "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," we can see his intentions had nothing to do with "good
faith." Now, as good Christians, no doubt neither Bryce and Toynbee
preferred to lie outright, but their dirty propagandistic job left them with little
choice. Stuck, it is only natural to assume they had to believe in the veracity of
the word of Armenians and missionaries (or as you read the marvelous explanation above, "The Foreign Offices issue so many falsehoods that
they end by believing in them themselves — a case of auto-suggestion.")
Note Sarafian's pathetic
explanation that the sources needed to be "authentic ... eye-witness
accounts." If anyone saw anything firsthand (most of these were secondhand
reports, or even third and fourth-hand), they saw suffering. Every Ottoman was
suffering; suffering is not genocide. And then to try and classify the
American consuls and missionaries as "neutral." Can you believe it?
America, awash with anti-Turkish propaganda, had probably the most hostile attitude
against Turks than any other Western nation. The interpreters of these
"neutral" sources were almost exclusively Armenians, who felt no
compunction about telling them whatever would best serve Hai Tahd, or the
Armenian Cause. (One example.) The
consuls had a "Terrible Turk" imprinting to begin with, and accepted
whatever their Armenian assistants told them at face value. The missionaries felt it
their Godly duty to vilify the heathen Turks, and to protect their beloved Christian
Armenians at every turn. Naturally, the corrupt reports of these
"non-Armenians" were going to support the dishonest claims of the
Sarafian goes on to say more in this interview, including lambasting those such as
Kamuran Gurun and Sukru Elekdag (perhaps Sarafian can answer Elekdag's question from
the interview directly above: "The Blue Book was
published in 1916. Why wasn't it referred to, to convict the people exiled to Malta?"), and he says, "Most people in Turkey know about
Morgenthau because of Heath Lowry’s booklet which misrepresents Morgenthau’s
reports and diaries and castigating the American ambassador as some sort of an
Armenian puppet. Heath Lowry’s assessment of Morgenthau is wrong." No one
says Morgenthau was an Armenian puppet. He was a headstrong racist who accepted wholesale the word of his
Armenian assistants. What Lowry's
research proved, utilizing the words of Morgenthau himself, is that Morgenthau
was a liar, in the production of his own propagandistic "Ambassador's
Morgenthau's Story." There was absolutely no misrepresentation in Lowry's
research (how could reproducing Morgenthau's own words, without distortion, be
classified as "misrepresentation"?) Sarafian also wraps up by declaring he
"accepted Dr. Halacoglu’s offer (to conduct joint research) in good
faith." Later events demonstrated
Sarafian used the expression "good faith" in the same manner as he
attributed to Bryce and Toynbee.
Ara Sarafian should be dreadfully ashamed for justifying these awful lies, but (not
that it is an excuse) he too is "stuck." His career is based entirely upon
perpetuating the lie of his genocide. Maybe he has come to even believe in what he
is saying, another case of "auto-suggestion." (Here, by the way, is a wonderful example of how such
"auto-suggestion" permeated the belief system of "neutral"
Americans from the period.)