Europe mainly acted as Turkey's protector until the end of
1870. Because Turkey was useful as a rival/counterforce to Russia. Europe began to form
different Christian governments in the Balkans once Russian influence began to make itself
The war of 1877-78 was an attempt by Europe to weaken
Russia but, in fact, it was Turkey that was ultimately weakened. Europe looked the other
way when the Bulgarian prince came upon the scene with the aid of Russia. For Europe's
balance, however, it was important for the borders to remain the same and for Turkey to
remain strong. The Bulgars were never meant to make their presence felt politically, but
then Europe noticed Bulgaria coming across as a vanguard of Russia. In 1890, Europe's
attitude toward Turkey suddenly changed; instead of protecting Ottoman soil, the new plan
set out to eradicate the Ottoman Empire. A lot of greater European statesmen began crying
that Turkey was an embarrassment to the continent in the 19th Century.
The project of dividing Turkish land was completed by 1895,
and the Sublime Porte found itself deprived of Europe's protection.
Europe was Turkey's friend as long as Turkey was able to
stand up to Russia. Once Turkey's might diminished and Europe lost interest in warring
with Russia, Europe's friendship with Turkey came to an end.
For a century, Russia became the protector of Eastern
Christians. It was easy to create incidents against Turkey for the purpose of coming
across as defending the rights of the Christians. This way, Russia could draw her sword
and find the perfect excuse to start yet another Russo-Turkish war. Western diplomats
would no longer make an effort to intervene.
What the Russian general has written falls perfectly in line
with the events in question, based on many independent sources; it's a known fact that the
"Sick Man of Europe" was targeted as prey for many years, by its Imperialistic
enemies. The fact that the Armenians were used as pawns to further weaken the weakened
Ottoman Empire... so that the European powers could further move in and impose their
conditions and capitulations... is historical fact. If General Mayewski wrote about such
conclusions at the time, he was a very astute man.
This page is a later addition to TAT, and I was already familiar
with General Mayewski from a page on this site, "Massacres by Armenians in the Late
19th Century, as told by a Russian." I wasn't too crazy about the translation on
this page either, but the purpose of this site is to mainly feature evidence from
non-Turkish sources... and General Mayewski certainly comes across as a powerful source.
However, I just learned the Zoryan Institute has come down
hard on General Mayewski (along with the diary of Lt.-Col. Twerdokhlebof, also featured on
another TAT page). Since the idea here is not to hide anything, we are obliged to see what
they had to say.
Unfortunately, the one who is doing the squawking is Vahakn Dadrian, who is more
prosecutor than professor, and one who has demonstrated a lack of ethics in presenting
only one side of the story and distorting the rest.
Whenever the Armenian militia is presented with evidence
that damns their beloved genocide, they are duty-bound to discredit the evidence as much
as they can... to the tune of the "Armenian
However, I'm not happy with the "loose strings"
of the Mayewski reports, so I was interested in what Dr. Dadrian had to say. And... who
knows... just because the man has been a professional deceiver in the past, does not mean
he may not be on to something here.
Here is the pertinent part of the Zoryan report attempting
to discredit Mayewski:
...in an article titled, “The Perversion by
Turkish Sources of Russian General Mayewski’s Report on the Turko-Armenian Conflict,”
(Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies vol. 5 (1990-1991): 139-152), Prof.
Vahakn Dadrian, the Zoryan Institute’s Director of Genocide Research, dissected the
Turkish publications dealing with Mayewski’s tract to conclude that they are faulty and
are in part based on doctored, rather than authentic, Mayewski material. By checking
Turkish, Armenian and French sources, as well as official German documents, Dr. Dadrian
established the fact that the Turks, through Major Mehmet Sadik, an intelligence officer
in the General Staff’s Department II, first translated the Russian tract into Ottoman
Turkish. Using the latter as a basis, the Turks then translated it into French for
world-wide distribution. But a careful examination of this French and, therefore, Turkish
version with the Russian original by German Ottomanist Prof. Martin Hartmann, revealed
that there are significant discrepancies between the original, on the one hand, and the
Turkish and French translations, on the other, including omissions. Moreover, as Professor
Hartmann ascertained, “The French version contains items not found in the Russian.” In
other words, as Professor Dadrian concludes, “The Russian General has been credited with
statements he did not make in his report.” Professor Hartmann felt constrained to inform
the German Foreign Office, which had commissioned him for this task of checking the
translations, that “The portions extracted from the Russian text and taken out of
context prove nothing; they may possibly include falsifications. The French text is
worthless (wertlos).” In his summary conclusion, Prof. Hartmann declares: “The
aim of the material obviously is to place the blame on the Christians... This is an
instrument of agitation... On the whole one gains the impression that one is dealing with
a clumsy effort to excuse the conduct of the Turkish government in the great atrocities of
1895-6 through the mouth of a Russian.”
Okay, let's see now... Mayewski's original obviously
That is all we need to find out exactly what he said.
That's all I want to know.
"“The portions extracted from the Russian text ...
may possibly include falsifications"?
Even if the Turkish translator was not entirely faithful
and distorted the meaning of some of the words... the significance of which would be a
subjective determination... how much different could the thrust of the work actually be?
In their wild quest to cast doubt on anything that runs
contrary to the Armenians' version of events, is Dr. Dadrian seriously suggesting that
General Mayewski wrote papers with an entirely different context?
It seems pretty clear the entire POINT that Mayewski was
making is that the massacres... of 1894-95, at least (which could well be applied to the
Armenian "Genodice" of 1915-16, since the very same political motivations were
in force stronger than ever)... was blown way out of proportion.
This desperate "scholarly finding" reminds me of
Dennis Papazian's "Mistaken Credulity"...
where the Armenian professor would pathetically attempt to point to a few weeds to give
the impression the entire forest needed to be burned down.
The Zoryan report goes on to state:
"The republication of Mayewski’s dubious material
and its promotion in the media through Zaman deliberately masks the story of a 19th
century event to misrepresent it as part of the World War I Armenian Genocide in order to
deny that genocide. The recent reprinting and distribution of Kamuran Gürün’s
notorious book, The Armenian File, a classic rendering of the traditional Turkish
state position of denial, is yet another example."
So why is The Armenian File "notorious"?
Because the book cited mainly Western sources and turned the Armenian "Genocide"
on its ear?
The Zoryan Institute is yet another Armenian organization
with plenty of dollars in its budget, and whose sole purpose is to affirm the Armenians'
raison d'etre through any means possible. In typical fashion, any claims made are
permissible... regardless of whether they have any bearing on the truth.
I would like to see the writings of General Mayewski to be
translated by an entirely neutral party. Then we will see just how "falsified"
his message really was.