According to The New York
Times, which I'm generally avoiding referring to, since the newspaper
was terribly prejudiced against the
Turks during these wartime years. (Luckily, The New York Times
ceased being one-sided regarding Turkey, up until... uhhhh... never mind.)
However, here America's greatest newspaper borrowed an Associated Press
account, and I found these words of the Turkish Foreign Minister very
The newspaper will serve as a source
for Talat Pasha's words, below... and Enver Pasha speaks below as well, from
the ghostwritten book of the Armenians' God, Henry
The following Halil Bey article,
along with some scanning errors, is courtesy of an Armenian web site. Come to
think of it, the ones that follow afterwards (with the exception of one tiny
Turkish source, referring to the fair warning the Armenians were given)
are also courtesy of Armenian web sites. Thanks, Armenian web sites! All the
zillions of genocide sites the Armenians have fanatically prepared are sure
coming in handy.
|Turkish Foreign Minister's Defense of Armenian Massacres
CURRENT HISTORY MAGAZINE [DEC. 1916]
(Published by New York Times Company, Times Square, New York, N. Y.)
The Turkish Foreign Minister, Halil Bey, in an
interview with The Associated Press representative at Vienna, Oct. 25, attempted to throw
the blame of his Government's massacres of Armenian men, women, and children upon the
Armenians themselves, on the ground that they had risen in revolt when the Russians
invaded the country. He said:
THE Young Turks have always looked upon the Armenians as a valuable assert to the Turkish
Empire. The fact is, we needed them. The country's commerce was largely in their hands;
and as farmers the Armenians have a great value. We did not look upon them as valuable
chattels, however. We were willing to give them an equal share in the Government, which we
did, as is shown by the fact that before the outbreak of the war we had a large number of
Armenians in the Chamber of Deputies and also several Senators and a Minister. Nearly all
the Vice Ministers were Armenians, because we recognized the ability of the Armenians and
were ready to give them their political rights in the tenancy of a proportionate number of
After the revolution all went well for a time, and the Young Turks hoped they had finally
found a solution to the problem which had vexed the old regime in Turkey for many years
and had retarded the progress of the country. The Balkan war, however, caused the
Armenians to again take up their separatist ideals. Committees formed an organization with
the intention of securing for the Armenians an autonomous government.
I think I would be the last man to deny a people self-government, but the case of the
Armenians is one where this must be done. The Armenians, spread throughout Asia Minor and
Southern Russia, are merely a majority in the districts usually designated as Armenian.
Armenian autonomy, therefore, would lead to the loss of the independence of the other
Ottoman races. Under these conditions even the Young Turks were opposed to the Armenian
plan, but in justice they wanted to give the Armenians a fuller share on the Government,
which was done. and even worst traducers cannot deny that.
When the war broke out we knew exactly what the Armenians were doing. More bombs, rifles,
ammunition, and money had been brought into the country and their organization was made
even more perfect. I was then President of the Chamber of Deputies and was very fond of
the Armenian members, as I had always been a friend of that race. So I
called the Armenian representatives together and asked what they intended doing. At
the end of the conversation I told them I could sympathize with their ideals and had
always done so as long as they were not entirely separatist.
The Armenians were Given Fair WARNING!
"Gentleman," I said, "I fully
understand your position and hope that you understand ours. We have engaged in a war
in which we may go down. That will be your opportunity to make arrangements with the
Entente, but bear in mind that the Ottoman Government will apply the most severe
measures if you act against the Turks before you know we are conquered. Make your
plans so that you can meet the Entente Powers with clean hands, which you can do by
supporting us so far and no further than the law demands. I think the Entente
statesmen will see the correctness of such conduct and will recognize your claim to
autonomy. You can then take up the work where we left off and in which I wish you
every success, but bear in mind that we are not gone yet, and that the slightest
false move on your part will bring trouble to all Armenians. Sit quiet and let us
try this issue. When you are sure we have lost, go over to the Entente and get from
them all you can."
[Enver Pasha, the leader of the Young Turks, Halil Bey said, called in the Armenian
patriarch one day and told him the same thing, but despite this, he said, the
Armenians rose when the Russians invaded Asia Minor, and the Turkish Government took
the measures which had been outlined to the Armenian leaders beforehand. The Turkish
Foreign Minister said that the Armenian organization made it impossible to confine
the steps taken against the Armenians to a single locality in rebellion, because the
organization was so perfect that only a sweeping measure at the first hint of an
uprising could meet the situation. Halil Bey continued:]
I will say that the loss to the Ottoman Empire through the deportation of the
Armenians has been immense. The Armenian is able and industrious, and therefore,
valuable in the economic scheme, but what could be done? We were at war and obliged,
therefore, to employ every means to make secure our own position, which was betrayed
so basely through our confidence.* * *We stand or fall with the Central Powers, and
at present there is nothing to indicate that any of our troops will fail -- not so
long as we have Germany to head the combination.
(The final two brief paragraphs regard Halil Bey's thoughts on how unbeatable
Germany would prove to be. Well, he couldn't have been right about everything!)
The foreign minister makes a most
logical point; at this final stage in her history, the "Sick Man of Europe" was on
her knees. The Armenians, so long a trusted people of the Empire, were in charge of
important positions, particularly in commerce. WHY would the Turks suddenly pick this
moment, when every resource was desperately needed, to get rid of them? It doesn't make any
sense. All the dunderheaded reasons provided, such as the reason that the Armenians
were Christians, the reason that the Turks were "jealous" of the Armenians, the
reason that the Armenians' money needed to be stolen... things the Turks could have easily
done in years past, when they weren't in such hot water... why pick this time in
particular to make trouble for the Armenians, a valuable resource for the nation? I don't
care how much racist Ambassador Morgenthau claims the Turks were mentally slow, they
COULDN'T have been that stupid!
There had to be a reason. The
reason was.... the Armenians betrayed their nation... in the nation's darkest hour.
While the biased New York
Times "harrumphs" about how ridiculous the foreign minister's reasons are
for the massacres ("...Halil Bey... attempted to throw the blame of his Government's
massacres of Armenian men, women, and children upon the Armenians themselves..."), name
me one nation... under similar dire straits... that would have acted any differently, under the circumstances.
Yet Another Warning!
While the Armenians and Russians were
attacking from behind, the Ottomans were trying to halt the advance of the Allies
along a wide front extending from Galicia to Iraq. After the massacres at Van, the
Ottoman government made one final effort to secure Armenian support for the war,
summoning the Patriarch and the Armenian Parliamentarians to a meeting where they
were warned that drastic measures would be taken unless the Armenians stopped
slaughtering Muslims. Armenian atrocities continued and the government finally
acted, on April 24, 1915 the Armenian revolutionary committees were closed and 235
of their leaders were arrested.
Professor Mumtaz Soysal of Ankara University
|Ambassador Morgenthau on Enver Pasha
ghostwritten book, "Ambassador Morgenthau's Story," was fictionalized from
beginning to end as uncovered by Dr. Heath Lowry's excellent research in "The Story Behind Ambassador Morgenthau's
Story." In one chapter, the unethical lawyer-turned-reluctant-ambassador
(having eyed a plum cabinet post of Secretary of the Treasury, in return for his
efforts as presidential campaign fund-raiser), restrained his Turcophobe self
(relatively), and had his ghostwriter (Burton J. Hendrick) give Enver Pasha
Keep in mind these
quotes were not the actual words that came from the Young Turk's mouth, as with the
case of the rest of the book. We begin with yet another notation of the fair
"The Armenians had a fair
warning," Enver began, "of what would happen to them in case they joined our
enemies. Three months ago I sent for the Armenian Patriarch and I told him that if the
Armenians attempted to start a revolution or to assist the Russians, I would be unable
to prevent mischief from happening to them. My warning produced no effect and the
Armenians started a revolution and helped the Russians. You know what happened at Van.
They obtained control of the city, used bombs against government buildings, and killed
a large number of Moslems. We knew that they were planning uprisings in other places.
You must understand that we are now fighting for our lives at the Dardanelles and that
we are sacrificing thousands of men. While we are engaged in such a struggle as this,
we cannot permit people in our own country to attack us in the back. We have got to
prevent this no matter what means we have to resort to. It is absolutely true that I
am not opposed to the Armenians as a people. I have the greatest admiration for their
intelligence and industry, and I should like nothing better than to see them become a
real part of our nation. But if they ally themselves with our enemies, as they did in
the Van district, they will have to be destroyed. I have taken pains to see that no
injustice is done; only recently I gave orders to have three Armenians who had been
deported returned to their homes, when I found that they were innocent. Russia,
France, Great Britain, and America are doing the Armenians no kindness by sympathizing
with and encouraging them. I know what such encouragement means to a people who are
inclined to revolution. When our Union and Progress Party attacked Abdul Hamid, we
received all our moral encouragement from the outside world. This encouragement was of
great help to us and had much to do with our success. It might similarly now help the
Armenians and their revolutionary programme. I am sure that if these outside countries
did not encourage them, they would give up all their efforts to oppose the present
government and become law-abiding citizens. We now have this country in our absolute
control and we can easily revenge ourselves on any revolutionists."
all," I said, "suppose what you say is true, why not punish the guilty?
Why sacrifice a whole race for the alleged crimes of individuals?"
"Your point is all right during peace
times," replied Enver. "We can then use Platonic means to quiet Armenians
and Greeks, but in time of war we cannot investigate and negotiate. We must act
promptly and with determination. I also think that the Armenians are making a mistake
in depending upon the Russians. The Russians really would rather see them killed than
alive. They are as great a danger to the Russians as they are to us. If they should
form an independent government in Turkey, the Armenians in Russia would attempt to
form an independent government there. The Armenians have also been guilty of
massacres; in the entire district around Van only 30,000 Turks escaped, all the rest
were murdered by the Armenians and Kurds. (Holdwater:
Wha--? "Kurds"?) I attempted to protect the non-combatants at the
Caucasus; I gave orders that they should not be injured, but I found that the
situation was beyond my control. There are about 70,000 Armenians in Constantinople
and they will not be molested, except those who are Dashnaguists and those who are
plotting against the Turks. However, I think you can ease your mind on the whole
subject as there will be no more massacres of Armenians."
"How can we furnish bread to the Armenians," Enver declared, "when we
can't get enough for our own people? I know that they are suffering and that it is
quite likely that they cannot get bread at all this coming winter. But we have the
utmost difficulty in getting flour and clothing right here in Constantinople."
Ambassador Morgenthau goes on to state "Enver's logic
was fairly maddening," but how could anyone argue with the logic, here? A
nation is at war. Correction. A nation on her last legs is at war. A part of
the population is aiding the invading enemy, and massacring their neighbors. What
could be done with them?
Even American Secretary of
State Robert Lansing, who had a hand in making editing suggestions with
"Ambassador Morgenthau's Story" (making sure to put the Turks in an even
worse light; the book already greatly deviates from Morgenthau's letters and diaries,
some of which were written by his Armenian secretary to begin with), said in November
"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."
Truly, how would any country
have acted differently, under the
circumstances? If the Armenians had not fired the first shot, their suffering would have only been limited to the
general suffering of the Ottoman population, facing hunger and disease.
Morgenthau's fallacious book
came under heavy fire from the distinguished foreign correspondent, George A. Schreiner, who wrote the
by-then ex-ambassador: "Has it
ever occurred to you that all governments reserve to themselves the right to put down
rebellion? It seems to me that even Great Britain assumed that stand towards the
Fathers of the Republic."
If Enver Bey informed
Morgenthau that Armenians massacred Turks, do you think Morgenthau automatically
concluded Enver Pasha was lying? He might have wanted it to look that way for the
purposes of his book, where his mission was to present the Turks as evil incarnate...
but given what Morgenthau cites as numerous examples of Enver's being forthright and
honest throughout his phony book... I don't think Morgenthau concluded Enver was a
liar. Morgenthau KNEW.... this is why the "good" part of Morgenthau as a
human being gave this little "equal time" to Enver in his book, after
lambasting the Turks in the most hideous fashion, particularly in the previous two
chapters. (He does not really come down so hard on Enver, here.) So, what does this
say about Henry Morgenthau, to close his eyes to the truth, and slander a whole nation
so viciously? What kind of character would that indicate in any man?
Here is Morgenthau's
encounter with Halil Bey, whom we got to know from the The New York
Times account above.... when he offered the same rational explanation:
Morgenthau on Halil Bey
"How many Armenians in the southern provinces
are in need of help?" I asked.
"I do not know; I would not give you even an approximate figure."
"Are there several hundred thousand?"
"I should think so," Halil admitted, "but I cannot say how many hundred
"A great many suffered," he added, "simply because Enver could not spare
troops to defend them. Some regular troops did accompany them and these behaved very well;
forty even lost their lives defending the Armenians. But we had to withdraw most of the
gendarmes for service in the army and put in a new lot to accompany the Armenians. It is
true that these gendarmes committed many deplorable excesses.
"A great many Turks do not approve these measures," I said.
"I do not deny it," replied the ever-accommodating Halil, as he bowed himself out.
Henry Morgenthau III, as Manhattan
D.A., can testify to New Yorkers
losing their temper. This grandchild
has proudly followed in grandfather's
footsteps, vilifying the Turks.
account in “Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story,” Enver Pasha is demonstrated as a
stand-up fellow. Morgenthau is a pest, asking for this and that, and Enver always gives in (Morgenthau’s
purpose in reciting such examples, I believe, is to show off how clever Morgenthau was in
finding the slow-witted Enver’s psychological weak spots)… but never does Morgenthau say
that Enver breaks his word. Morgenthau tries to ridicule Enver, by calling him something to
the effect of a little Napoleon… and finally, because Morgenthau’s purpose is to defame
the Turks and it just won’t do for Enver to come across as the honorable man he seems to
have been, Enver loses his temper, and Morgenthau is horrified to see Enver for what he
truly is: "a savage, bloodthirsty Turk." (Henry, people lose their tempers in New
York City all the time, and for reasons much slighter than what your ghostwriter cited
ticked Enver off.)
agenda was no secret… the book was intended as war propaganda. No Ottoman official gets away unscathed. None, that
is… except for Halil Bey. (Unless I missed anything.)
firmly has Morgenthau’s respect as an honorable man… even implied in the last line of
the brief passage above. Morgenthau takes no
“cheap shots” at Halil Bey.
then, is this:
If you believe
Halil Bey was telling the truth… forty Turkish troops DIED defending the Armenians. (I
repeat: they made the ultimate sacrifice)… and
even if you don’t believe him, any honest historian can tell you Turkish troops died,
defending the Armenians (and I’m not talking about a Vahakn Dadrian, who is not a real historian. A man like Dadrian is a
dishonest prosecutor only looking for evidence to hang the Turks with, closing his eyes to
unless these troops were “loose cannons,” deliberately disobeying the orders of their
government (which would be a Dadrian-type conclusion; of course, he would have no legitimate
evidence to back up such false claims with), what does that tell you about the Armenian “Genocide”?
How many S.S.
men died, defending the Jews? How many Wehrmacht German troops shot fellow Germans, to save
a single Jew? (The Turkish troops died by killing fellow Turks, Kurds/Muslims, who were
attacking the Armenians.)
What kind of a
self-defeating action would that be? (1) Government gives orders to exterminate Armenians,
and (2) Troops working for the same government make the ultimate sacrifice, going completely
against those orders.
By GOD, it
doesn’t make any SENSE!
Maybe this is
why Morgenthau’s “conscientious” side (and he did have one… I am not saying
Morgenthau was an evil man; he committed his wrongs in the belief that the end justified the
means. Unfortunately, the extent he was willing to go through to implement his objective can
easily be classified as evil… since he greatly contributed to seriously harming the
reputation of an entire people, the effects of which are still alive, today) did not address
Halil Bey’s claim. If Morgenthau were convinced there was a true government-sponsored
extermination policy, he might not have confronted Halil Bey with an argument, after Halil
Bey said what he said above… but he certainly would have raised the argument with his
readers. He did not. Why? Why did Morgenthau not address this illogical notion of Turkish
troops dying to save Armenian lives?
When Morgenthau claims in his phony book that there was a government-sponsored genocide, he
was lying. Morgenthau was a liar, and there was no Armenian “Genocide.”
Memoirs of Talaat Pasha"
I don't know how The
New York Times got its hands on the "Posthumous
Memoirs of Talaat Pasha," published in the
newspaper's Current History 15, no. 1 (October 1921)... since the Young Turk was
murdered by Armenian gunman and hero Soghoman
Tehlirian on March 15, 1921; I'd imagine the only person with access to the
Ottoman leader's private papers would have been his wife, whom the cowardly Armenian
also shot (according to The New York Times,
assuming accurate reportage)... and apparently was untried for in a Germany
too afraid to let the outside world believe it had anything to do with the Armenian
I don't trust biased
American newspaper accounts... for example, The Los Angeles Herald Examiner is on record for having printed an August 1, 1926 article,
simultaneously written “by” “Mustafa Kemal Pasha”, and also presented as “an
interview with Emile Hilderbrand, a Swiss artist and journalist,” proven to be yet another fabrication. However,
from all the many New York Times and other newspaper accounts Armenian web sites
make sure to include as "evidence" of the Armenian "Genocide," I
never ran into the "Posthumous Memoirs of Talaat Pasha"... so maybe
it's authentic. I learned about it haphazardly through a Florida school-system site
that the Armenians have succeeded in poisoning, and the literature was mentioned as
part of a bibliography for the curriculum's now including the Armenian
"Genocide" as though it were a fact. I ran a search, and I couldn't find
the "Posthumous Memoirs of Talaat Pasha" in its entirety... but I
did run into an excerpt in the Armenian "cilicia"
site, and I also decided to include (and respond to) the parts the Armenian writer
had to say.
For example, Talaat does not challenge the fact that deportations occurred.
However, he blames the victims for their own deaths, a theme that recurs in most
justifications by perpetrators of genocide. He states that the Armenians
collaborated with the Russians on the Caucasian front. In response, the government
took the following actions:
The Porte, acting under the same obligation,
and wishing to secure the safety of its army and its citizens, took energetic
measures to check these uprisings. The deportation of the Armenians was one of these
preventive measures. I admit also that the deportation was not carried out lawfully
everywhere. In some places unlawful acts were committed. The already existing hatred
among the Armenians and Mohammedans, intensified by the barbarous activities of the
former, had created many tragic consequences. Some of the officials abused their
authority, and in many places people took preventive measures into their own hands
and innocent people were molested. I confess it. I confess, also, that the duty of
the Government was to prevent these abuses and atrocities, or at least to hunt down
and punish their
perpetrators severely. In many places, where the property and goods of the deported
people were looted, and the Armenians molested, we did arrest those who were
responsible and punished them according to the law. I confess, however, that we
ought to have acted more sternly, opened up a general investigation for the purpose
of finding out all the promoters and looters and punished them severely.4
Talaat divided the "looters" into two categories: those who pillaged out
of personal hatred and for individual profit, and those who sincerely believed that
they were serving the common good by punishing the Armenians for their allegedly
traitorous acts. Regarding this latter group, Talaat states: "The Turkish
elements here referred to were shortsighted, fanatical, and yet sincere in their
belief. The public encouraged them, and they had the general approval behind them.
They were numerous and strong."5
Talaat offers the following justification for his government's unwillingness to
punish these individuals: "Their open and immediate punishment would have
aroused great discontent among the people, who favored their acts. An endeavor to
arrest and to punish all these promoters would have created anarchy in Anatolia at a
time when we greatly needed unity. It would have been dangerous to divide the nation
into two camps, when we needed strength to fight outside enemies."6
What is noteworthy in Talaat's reflections is that he does not deny the
deportations, nor does he deny that crimes were committed against the Armenians. But
he distances himself from the abuses by blaming the Armenians for the necessity of
deporting them, implying that any atrocities that occurred in the process of
deportation were carried out by fanatical local Turks who were pursuing a personal
vendetta, and he excuses himself from punishing these Turks because it would have
been policically divisive.
Yet Talaat's remarks do not answer several significant questions: (1) why it was
necessary to deport Armenians who were far from the Russian front; (2) why women and
children had to be deported; (3) why the government armed the Special Organization
and encouraged them to attack Armenian caravans; and (4) why events were
orchestrated to make Armenian resistance practically impossible. (As discussed
previously, some of the preliminary actions included disarming Armenians serving in
the Turkish army, arresting Armenian political and religious leaders, seizing all
weapons at a local level, creating hysteria among the local Turkish population
toward the "traitorous" Armenians, and removing valis [regional officials]
who refused to carry out abuses against the Armenians.) In Talaat's version of the
events, the government did what was required, but the local Turkish population got
out of hand.
4 Talaat Pasha, "Posthumous Memoirs of Talaat Pasha"
Current History 15, no. 1 (October 1921): 295.
Isn't it remarkable that Ottoman officials are
all consistent in their reports.... even Talat Pasha, the great villain whom an
irresponsibly lazy-thinking bigot like Rudy
Brueggemann (among countless others) has concluded is "...a man whose crimes
equaled those of Hitler and Stalin." If one overlooks the forgeries that were
attributed to Talat Pasha and concentrates on real documents from his hand, it's easy to
see he was concerned over the Armenians' welfare. Even this excerpt from his alleged "Posthumous
Memoirs" reveals he was hardly a Hitler or Stalin. Look at what is being said...
I admit also that the deportation was not carried out
lawfully everywhere. In some places unlawful acts were committed. The already existing
hatred among the Armenians and Mohammedans, intensified by the barbarous activities of the
former, had created many tragic consequences. Some of the officials abused their
authority, and in many places people took preventive measures into their own hands and
innocent people were molested. I confess it. I confess, also, that the duty of the
Government was to prevent these abuses and atrocities, or at least to hunt down and punish
their perpetrators severely. In many places, where the property and goods of the deported
people were looted, and the Armenians molested, we did arrest those who were responsible
and punished them according to the law. I confess, however, that we ought to have acted
more sternly, opened up a general investigation for the purpose of finding out all the
promoters and looters and punished them severely.
There is nothing here that is not in keeping with what the present "Turkish
government says"... that is, THE TRUTH.
with a German
The following Talat quotes are also in keeping
with THE TRUTH. The Armenian writer sounds surprised that the assassinated Interior
Minister admits to "deportations" (really, relocations, or resettlements;
"deportation" means banishment outside a country's borders; there certainly
might have been other things deviating in the translation from Talat Pasha's original
Turkish) and to the crimes against the Armenians by classifying such statements as
"noteworthy." Where he has a problem is that the Armenians were blamed, and that
there were limits in pursuing the "fanatical local Turks," because it would have
been "politically divisive." He then goes on to ask four "significant
It's hard to understand how such an intelligent-sounding writer can not provide the answer
to these "significant questions," but I will gladly give him a hand. If he's
reading this, I hope he can, in turn, answer these
questions that I have posed for those as he who vigorously refuse to accept the
reality of this situation.
Talât Pasha does not suggest going after the criminal Turks would have been POLITICALLY
divisive, as if he were a Governor George Pataki
who unconscionably takes steps to help his political career. Take the trouble to read what
he had to say, assuming these words came from Talât Pasha: "An endeavor to arrest and to punish all these promoters would have created
anarchy in Anatolia at a time when we greatly needed unity. It would have been dangerous
to divide the nation into two camps, when we needed strength to fight outside enemies."
Let me "rerun" what I said about Turkish Turncoat Professor Engin Akarli, from
the page where I analyzed a PBS
In retrospect, it's easy to look at
the tragic events transpired so long ago and say from one's comfortable armchair, yes, the
Ottomans were heavy-handed in their response. However, I know from reading Henry
Morgenthau's "Ambassador Morgenthau's Story" that the situation was really
desperate for the Ottoman Empire. The nation was bankrupt, and "thousands of Turks were dying daily"...
mainly because the Turkish men were mobilized for the army, and there was no one to till
the fields, or to protect Turkish women and children from the marauding attacks of the
revolting Armenians. Famine and disease were everywhere, and every available man was
needed at five or more fronts when the nation was engaged in a desperate struggle for its
women helped with manufacturing bullets
Yes, there were innocent Armenians who
didn't want to play a part in their leaders' treacherous directives, but almost all
complied; some did so out of fear of knowing what happens to Armenians who step out of line... and many
did so willingly, having planned for the opportune moment for years by stockpiling
weaponry, and sneakily waiting for the right moment to strike, when their nation was at
its weakest (i.e., at war). When the whole community is supportive of such treachery,
willingly or not, whom do you trust? Women may not be at the front lines, but they're
helping with the manufacturing of bullets and the tending and feeding of the
revolutionaries. Children can be active participants, as American soldiers were recently
reminded with Iraqi kids during Gulf War II... in a New York Times report on the heroes of
Musa Dagh, an Armenian bragged about how an Armenian child (Peter Gragosian) shot to death four Turkish soldiers. Did the
Ottoman government actually have the resources to investigate every family to determine
who was loyal, and who was not? How do you determine loyalty, anyway... by the way Armenian faces smile at you?
As Enver Pasha said (as "quoted" by Morgenthau's ghostwriter, in so many words above), you may have the luxury of making such determinations during
peacetime, but not with mighty mortal enemy Russia crashing through the gates and with
England and France smashing through Mesopotamia and threatening the Dardanelles.
We now can conclude America was a touch too xenophobic when the lives of
Japanese-Americans were ruined during WWII... but the Americans did it in a Western
country that was more "civilized" than how the Ottoman Empire is perceived, at a
time more modern almost thirty years later, and — this is most important — with a
people who did not betray their country... women, children and elderly included.
Would Professor Akarli classify what happened to the Japanese-Americans as
"genocide"? Yes, their lives were not in danger as were the lives of the
Ottoman-Armenians being relocated... but America had no enemies immediately knocking on
her doors and had plenty of resources, relative modernity and manpower. Armenians were
killed during the relocation, but was that out of a government-sponsored plan to
exterminate them? If that's what you believe, Professor Akarli, provide the hard evidence;
otherwise, please educate yourself on the meaning of "genocide."
"The women, armed with axes, guns,
daggers, and sticks, chased the Turkish prisoners who were escaping, and killed most
of them, only 56 of them were able to escape."
Diary of Aghasi, leader of 1895
Zeitun rebellion, p. 289 [as cited in "The Armenian File"]
"...Zeki Pasha had come down to the
station, evidently trying to escape, when some of these Armenian women recognized
him and attacked him savagely. To save his life, the British soldiers locked him
Ernest Partridge, "The Pensacola
Party and Relief Work in Turkey," Armenian
Affairs, Summer-Fall 1950, Vol. I, No. 3-4, pp. 293-297
My Armenian writer, face the facts: Your people
committed an act of high treason in the darkest hour of their nation's existence.... a
nation where your people prospered and lived safely and harmoniously for centuries. Please
accept, once and for all, that there was nothing "alleged" about these... as you put it... "allegedly traitorous acts." I agree all criminals need to pay for their actions,
including the Turks who victimized the innocent Armenians (and we should not minimize some
1,400 Turks were tried during war time... and at least twenty were actually executed in 1915; what a peculiar
way to run a genocide, to punish your own men performing their exterminatory orders);
however, none of the Armenians would have been touched, had the Armenians not listened to
their revolting leaders. The Armenians fired the first shot. You have nobody to blame for what happened but your own
forefathers, for their treachery. And don't forget, they were WARNED.
Pursuing Turkish criminals wholeheartedly had to take a back seat to preserving the
existence of the nation... maybe you can't get it through your head what an utterly
dangerous situation was in place, with the powerful Russians, historically known to prey
upon the Sick Man of Europe for centuries, barging inside the country — with the help of
your Benedict Arnold forefathers. The issue is not being afraid of POLITICAL
divisiveness... the issue is a matter of imminent DANGER, and of LIFE AND DEATH. Do you
know what the Russians did with the Turks in the Turkish lands they conquered? Why, the
exact same thing the Armenians did with
the Turks, those times they had the upper hand..!
This is why the Ottoman officials who keep saying every man was needed at the front were
not kidding... and this is why the ones assigned to protect the relocating Armenians were poorer, irregular gendarmes, some of whom did not behave professionally. It was an
extremely desperate situation; when Halil Bey is quoted by Ambassador Morgenthau's
ghostwriter as having said the regular troops behaved well, forty of them dying to
defend the Armenians, it's believable. Do you think if there was a state-sponsored policy
of genocide, troops would have died to protect Armenians? I'm sure even you would
have enough common sense to admit that would have been plain ridiculous.
Regarding your four questions, the second has already been answered; as far as (1) why
(was it) necessary to deport Armenians who were far from the Russian front? (At least
140,000 Ottoman Armenians, mostly those living outside of the Russian battle zone, were
not subject to the relocation.) The answer is, it's a wonder why ALL Armenians weren't
subjected to the resettlement program, since Armenian treachery knew no geographical
boundaries... for example, Armenians were doing their best to help the British and French
in their plans to conquer "Constantinople," by providing secrets and by sabotaging the welfare of their nation's
military. Please also keep in mind that hundreds of thousands of Ottoman Armenians in the
East were NOT "deported"... they kept going back and forth to Russian territory
with the changing tides of the war, many dying from the resulting famine and disease
(nearly 150,000, according to your very own Richard Hovannisian), their deaths conveniently blamed on
Turkish massacres. Maybe another question you can add to your list of
"significant questions" is, Why were 180,000 innocent Turkish Muslims of the
province of Sivas butchered by your secessionist forefathers, when Sivas, for example,
was not in the war zone... having never been reached by the Russian army?
As far as (3) why the government armed the Special Organization and encouraged them to
attack Armenian caravans?... Keep in mind your beloved historians like Vahakn Dadrian will fall all over
themselves to provide parallels with Nazi
Germany; suddenly, the country's "CIA" (Special Organization, or Teskilat-i
Mahsusa) becomes a counterpart to the Nazis' SS. Our Armenian friend is telling us these
secret agents were armed for the purpose of attacking the relocating Armenians... in lieu
of the Muslims who attacked the Armenians, usually in the process of their vengeful blood
feud. The main purpose of this organization, set up during WWI, was to garner the support
of Indian, Egyptian and Russian Muslims for the Ottoman State... and there is no LEGITIMATE evidence that this
organization was given any tasks during the forced migrations; that is, evidence of the
clean, no-questions-about-it variety... point to anything by the biased likes of Vahakn
Dadrian, and beware of running the risk of its automatically not being accepted at face
Regarding (4) why (were events) orchestrated to make Armenian resistance practically
impossible... HAH?? Have you flipped out..? What nation... especially in its death
throes... would want to make it easy for a treacherous portion of its population to
precipitate its demise? Especially when interesting reading matter can be found, such as
the November 1914 issue of the Hunchak Armenian [Revolutionary] Gazette, published in
Paris, exhorting: "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. They will cooperate with
the Allies, making full use of all political and revolutionary means for the final victory
of Armenia, Cilicia, Caucasus, Azerbayjan. ... [H]eroes who will sacrifice their lives for
the great cause of Armenia.... Armenians proud to shed their blood for the cause of
Armenia...." Am I being unreasonable by assuming it would be the duty of ANY
nation to want to make such resistance... as impossible... as possible..?