--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CURRENT HISTORY MAGAZINE [DEC. 1916] 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CURRENT HISTORY
(Published by New York Times Company, Times Square, New York, N. Y.) 

Halil Bey

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 public offices. 

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 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.

"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 thousand."

"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.

--------------------------------

Account after 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.)

Morgenthau’s 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.)

Halil Bey 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.

The question 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 everything else).

Therefore, 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?

The answer: 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.”

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.

Talat Pasha 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 questions."

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 Pro-Armenian show:

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 very life.

Armenian 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."

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 value.

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..?