When I began constructing this web site, one of the first
pages I presented was an addressing of an Armenian "FAQ" page I
noticed on several Armenian web sites. These were frequently brought up points
from the Turkish "denial" camp, and the infrequently provided
answers from the Armenians. I respect Professor Papazian for attempting to
provide an explanation to the Turkish arguments, as often all Armenians are
content in doing is repeating the positions they've been repeating for so
long, no matter how based in fantasy... simply because they've had the luxury
to do so, unopposed, for nearly a century.
As I'm winding down with the web site's construction, I
encountered yet another refreshing addressing of Turkish arguments — and
it's only fitting that I finish in the same way I began... by rebutting Dr.
Professor Dennis Papazian
Papazian's essay is entitled, "Misplaced Credulity:" (that's a good title!) "Contemporary Turkish Attempts to Refute
the Armenian Genocide." It appeared in the Armenian Review 45, no. 1-2/177-178
(Spring-Summer 1992), and was revised in 2001. You can read the professor's rebuttal (by
clicking on the link above, on his university's web site) to a letter by Turkey's
then-ambassador to the United States, Sukru Elekdag, which appeared in the September 21,
1983 issue of The Wall Street Journal, under the title
"Armenians vs. Turks: The View From Istanbul."
(Hm. I just realized, if Dr. Papazian's rebuttal
first appeared in 1992, how come the professor picked an old 1983 letter to do battle
with? The Turks were just beginning to counter the long, long years of Armenian propaganda
in 1983, and the choice of Western sources to back them up weren't yet widely researched
and available; surely there could have been a more current position with better sources
Dr. Papazian could have targeted to try and tear apart. That is, assuming Dr. Papazian
desired to put his best foot forward in truly vanquishing "Contemporary Turkish
Attempts to Refute the Armenian Genocide.")
The professor begins by claiming, "In the
mid-1980s, the Turkish government's denials became more frequent and more strident, in
part no doubt because Armenian extremists, beginning in 1973, brought the Armenian
Genocide back into public light by the assassination of a number of Turkish diplomats in
various parts of the world."
It's true — the Armenian assassins
(the word "assassin" better befits a murderer... an "Armenian
extremist" would be more along the lines of a Professor Papazian, whose sole job it
is to "prove" the Armenian "Genocide," no matter what, rather than
looking at the issue objectively, as a true scholar is duty-bound to do) did achieve their
goal of bringing the genocide issue out in the open in a more prevalent way. However, the
Turks did not say at this point, "Oh my God! We had better cover our tracks with
lies, because the Armenian assassins are making us look bad." The Turks already looked bad — thanks to their policy of keeping
mum on the topic for ever so long, in the mature interest of preserving brotherhood
instead of harping on the injustices committed by both sides in the conflict. Only
when the Armenians got murderously too fanatical did the Turks finally wake up and decide
to present the truth to the world.
Does Professor Papazian truly believe
the Turkish government began to work with public relations firms to present a version of
events that is false? If he believes that, why is he ignoring and misrepresenting certain
fundamental points of the conflict, such as the Armenians' revolt (he has the audacity, in
this site's "Armenian FAQ" page, to call Armenian actions "self-defense"... and then, at another
point, he contradicts himself by claiming the Armenians were "unarmed") and the
Malta Tribunal, when the Ottoman Empire WAS tried for genocide.... by prosecutors who were
the enemy (wishing to wipe Turkey off the face of the map), and by researchers who were primarily Armenian ?
I'm a Turkish-American with no
contact with the Turkish government, and few contacts with other Turks. I'm making up my
own mind by looking COMPLETELY at what both sides have to say. This is why I'm presenting
the best of what the Armenians and their supporters cite as their evidence, and I welcome
essays like Professor Papazian's, who at least makes some effort in countering the real
issues. (Instead of just generally complaining of Turkish "lies" and Turkish
"denials," without seriously getting into what those "lies" really
ARE.) The Turkish government has finally gotten around to presenting the Turkish side in a
serious way (thanks to the stupidly counter-productive Pandora's Box-opening Armenian
assassins, who let the real cat out of the bag) not because the Turks are trying to cover
their tracks (if they were to engage in maintaining a lie, they wouldn't be able to come
up with all the many verifiable sources), but because they know it is the TRUTH. And it's
not just the Turkish government, but many Western
academicians and scholars who know the truth when they see it. (Those who dare to
speak of the truth, anyway... Armenian retribution, with their capacity for destroying reputations or even lives, is
rarely far behind.)
"This denial by the United States State
Department could only amaze the informed public inasmuch as it was American officials and
ordinary American citizens in the Ottoman Empire who had provided President Woodrow
Wilson's administration, and indeed the whole world, with overwhelming eyewitness and
photographic accounts of the tragic events..."
How informed is a public who
had only been exposed to one version of an event? My classification for that would be an
"uninformed" public. If people want to conclude an Armenian Genocide took place
once they objectively balance both sides of the story, that would be fine — but then,
and only then, could they be called "informed." For the nth time, the professor
demonstrates his unprofessional bias... not that he hasn't shown his stripes already, by
eyewitness accounts (uhhh... I wouldn't call the photographic accounts
"overwhelming." The origins of many of the photos of skeletons and victims one
sees in Armenian web sites cannot be accounted for, and Armenians are known to fashion any scene of horror for their own
purposes. Besides, shots of suffering and malnourished, or even dead, people don't prove a
government-sponsored genocide... famine, for example, did not discriminate among the
citizens of the Ottoman Empire; even Turkish soldiers, the first line of defense, were
subject to starving to death) were almost
always presented by missionaries (who could not be classified as "ordinary
Americans"), or missionary and Armenian-influenced U.S. consuls, who like the boss,
Ambassador Morgenthau, already had a built in racist bias against the Turks.
Are we all clear on what an "eyewitness"
really means, by the way? (It's not this, but this.)
There is also an abundance of contemporary newspaper
accounts and journal articles that appeared in the American press.
Yep. Reams and reams of them, in fact. It would be nice to believe the
journalists responsible for such articles were fair, objective and professional... just as
it would be nice to believe all professors exhibited such honorable qualities. The
American arm of Britain's propaganda-producing Wellington House did a thoroughly good job of sending out their
fabricated reports to the people and organizations that had the power to mold opinions,
and the newspapers among them simply swallowed wholesale these one-sided and racist
Nevertheless, even reputable
newspapers such as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal were caught off guard by
the Turkish public relations offensive and were quick to accept Turkish denials. Caught
between Armenian claims and Turkish counterclaims, these national publications were
finally driven to do their own research in order to develop an informed opinion. The New
York Times had no farther to go than its own archives; and it was confronted with the
choice of either repudiating its own historical record or accepting the Armenian position.
It soon dropped the word "alleged" from its articles.
I owe Professor Papazian a debt of
gratitude for teaching me why The New York Times stubbornly
insists on the reality of the Armenian "Genocide." I recall running into an
April 4, 1985 editorial of theirs (entitled "The Sorrows of Armenia")
where nearly half of the piece was comprised of Turk-friendly Stanford J. Shaw & Ezel
Kural Shaw's figures. I wondered WHY America's most prestigious newspaper still wound up
labeling the events as a genocide when there surely was much evidence to at least cause
serious doubt. Now I know. The New York Times did not want to
come across as admitting the many false reports they blindly printed during the World War
I era were without merit, as it's not like they would have erred with just one or two
articles... but, embarrassingly, reams and reams of them. It's said that it takes a big
man to admit responsibility, so the newspaper decided not to be a big man. It would be
safer to stand by the accuracy of such reports rather than compromise the newspaper's
credibility by "repudiating its own historical record." So it's either this
explanation, or The New York Times honestly believed all their
past articles were based on truth... unbelievable articles such as this one.
On the Other Hand... (ADDENDUM)
According to an ANCA
press release of April 17, 2004
("NEW YORK TIMES REVISES POLICY ON ARMENIAN GENOCIDE"), the biased
newspaper had NOT dropped the word "alleged" in its articles, as Dr.
Papazian reported. Here are parts of the release:
According to a news release by
the International Association of Genocide Scholars, The New York Times revised
guideline for journalists states that "after careful study of scholarly
definitions of 'genocide,' we have decided to accept the term in references to the
Turks' mass destruction of Armenians in and around 1915." The policy goes on to
note that "the expression 'Armenian genocide' may be used freely and should not
be qualified with phrasing like 'what Armenians call,' etc."
For more than
two decades, the ANC, working with its network of grassroots activists around the
country, initiated several nationwide campaigns to press The New York Times to end
its practice of dismissing the Armenian Genocide as simply an Armenian historical
claim. Armenian Weekly editor Jason Sohigian has written extensively to the New York
Times, working to provide timely information and input to the editorial staff.
Last year, the ANC of Eastern Massachusetts spearheaded the successful effort to
urge the Boston Globe to suspend its policy against the use of the term
"genocide" when referring to the Armenian Genocide. The decision was made
in July 2003, setting a precedent for its parent company - The New York Times - to
reexamine its policy.
Man, those Armenians are busy,
busy, busy! Of course, The Boston Globe was susceptible to all
of their propaganda, originating from the city that has historically been the most
Armenian-friendly in the United States... but doesn't The New York
Times have a reputation to uphold?
The side of Truth and
Turks has no chance. When Holdwater recently tried to get The Times'
ombudsman's ear, the response was that they would consult with... Peter Balakian!
At any rate, as far as
Dr. Papazian's accuracy, it might be possible The Times temporarily
decided to go with pure genocide, and later flip-flopped. On the Other Hand...
Dr. Papazian could have been wrong. Not like it would have been the first time.
The Wall Street Journal, lacking its own historic
account, assigned a member of its editorial board, Dr. James Ring Adams, to do a
three-month study of the evidence. The fruit of his research appeared in a series of three
articles which were published on the editorial page in August 1983, the second of which
was entitled "Facing Up to an Armenian Genocide."...(He wrote): "In spite
of the scholarly trappings, the Turkish defense relies on discrediting all contemporary
Western accounts as war-time propaganda and all incriminating documents as Armenian
forgeries. So the Turks must make liars of men like Henry Morgenthau, American ambassador
to Turkey from 1913 to 1916; of the great English historian Lord Bryce; and of his young
research assistant Arnold Toynbee."(14)
How much counter-evidence did Dr.
James Ring Adams cover? In 1983, the Turks were just beginning to provide their side of
We can already see the bias and
ignorance of Dr. Adams when he presents Morgenthau, Bryce and the young Toynbee as being
beyond reproach. The Turks only make liars of men when their credibility is in question.
Anyone who looks at the psychology and motivations of "Christian" influenced
Americans or wartime propaganda-causing Britons must question their credibility. The
Armenians make liars of men when they make it their business to assassinate their
character; such as when Armenians falsely claimed Judge Sam Weems, the author of the book,
"Armenia — Secrets of a 'Christian' Terrorist State," was a "convicted felon."
Ambassador Sukru Elekdag in 1999
conclusions reached by Adams, despite his simultaneous strong condemnation of Armenian
"terrorism," moved the ambassador of Turkey to the United States, Sukru Elekdag,
to issue an extensive rebuttal in the form of a letter to the editor which the Journal
conscientiously published on September 21, 1983, under the title "Armenians vs.
Turks: The View From Istanbul."
What person in his right mind would
not condemn the murdering of innocents by Armenian terrorists? Only the Armenian community has been
supportive of the actions of these murderous cowards, regarding them as heroes... just
like in Armenia, when that nation's president and religious leader presented the mass
murderer and "Jew Hunter" General Dro with full state and military honors
in 2000. Ambassador Elekdag's not being entitled to rebut the conclusions of Dr. Adams
because Dr. Adams condemned terrorism is like saying PBS' "The Great War" should not be criticized
for its biased "genocide" segment since the first segment on Gallipoli was fair
to the Turks.
As a matter of fact, Elekdag has brought together in one place all the arguments proffered
by his government over the decades first to deny and then, by a twist of logic, to justify
the Armenian Genocide of 1915-16.
Those "decades," at the
first writing of Professor Papazian's article in 1992, was barely over one lousy decade...
regarding available Turkish arguments. (Again, in 1980, the director of Washington's
Holocaust Memorial Museum had nowhere to go to get the Turkish view, and turned to little
old me.) If he used the word "decades" for the revision of his article in 2001,
then we're talking about still only two lousy decades. At the time of Ambassador Elekdag's
writing of his letter, 1983, I would say that would equal, what? Less than half a decade?
It is surprising, in light of Elekdag's appeal for
good scholarship, that the ambassador should have made so many small errors of simple
fact. The Adana massacres did not take place in 1906, but in 1909. It was Sidney Bradshaw
Fay, not Fey, who wrote The Origins of the World War. It was Cyrus, and not Cyril, Hamlin
who was president of Robert College. And, inter alia, the United States did not declare
war on the Ottoman Empire, and it is impolitic, to say the least, for Elekdag to maintain
that the United States ambassador considered Turkey "the enemy."
Well, this is why we have
conscientious scholars as Professor Papazian to nitpick over these small inaccuracies,
such as the misspelling of "Fay" for "Fey."
(Although the U.S.'s declaring war on
the Ottoman Empire was a big inaccuracy, if that's what the professor's opponent claimed, über
alles. Uh, I mean, "inter alia." Since I don't have a copy of what Amb. Elekdag wrote, I cannot be
sure. I think what Prof. Papazian is telling us is that SINCE the two nations were not at
war, it was wrong for Elekdag to maintain Morgenthau considered Turkey as "the
However, let's keep in mind who
Ambassador Elekdag was. Ambassador Elekdag was one of the lone voices during the 1980s who
would throw a dinky little life raft against the (if I may borrow from Professor Mahmut
Ozan) "tsunami" of Armenian Propaganda. How much help did Ambassador Elekdag
have to check and counter-check the tiny little details? I get the impression he was just
another Turk, despite his official position, trying to gather the available facts and
figures, on his own. I could be wrong about this, but I don't picture an immense
headquarters in Washington's Turkish embassy working night and day to dot every "i."
(Unlike the forces the pro-Armenians had, and have, at their
Who cares whether classifying
Morgenthau as one considering Turkey as the enemy was "impolitic"; if it was
true, that's all that counts. Judging by Morgenthau's published articles and books, he was
virulently anti-Turkish. Not just a little bit, now.... but virulently! And, among other things... uh, I mean, "inter alia"...
in 1915-16, while the U.S. was not at war with any of the Central Powers, let's not forget
one does not need a formal declaration of war to be considered an enemy (More on this
point, below); by no stretch of the imagination was the U.S. looking upon the Ottoman
Empire as "the friend."
Furthermore, we should take note of the fact that
Henry Morgenthau, the American ambassador to Turkey, did not, as Ambassador Elekdag
claims, rely "on selected missionary reports and communications translated by Greeks
and Armenians who could hardly have been disinterested parties." Morgenthau, as is
well known, relied primarily on official reports written in English by his own experienced
native-born American consuls and consular agents stationed in various cities of Anatolia
and Greater Syria and that of honest American missionaries who were scattered all over the
The reader unfortunately cannot
witness the beautiful spectacle of Holdwater rolling his eyes so far upward, only the
whites could be seen.
WHO do you suppose those
"experienced native-born American consuls" relied on, for the most part, but
reports from missionaries and Armenians? The only one who I'm aware of, at this point, who
ventured out to check the massacred bodies out for himself was Leslie Davis... the
Armenian "big gun" featured on PBS' many pro-Armenian programs. (Let's not
forget the Turks don't deny there were massacres... only that there was a
government-sponsored policy of extermination.) However, with the little bit of information I've so far managed
to gather on Mr. Davis (all from Armenian sources), I'm not convinced he was always on the
up and up.
I invite the reader to examine the
thought process of one of these consuls... George
Horton, who wrote "The Blight of Asia." I don't know the personalities of
each of the other consuls, but I have the feeling Mr. Horton's unbelievable racism and
religious bigotry (not unlike Morgenthau's... these two men were peas in a pod) would not
have been an isolated case.
These men relied on the claims of
missionaries and Armenians/Greeks. If they didn't journey out of the comfortable confines
of their consular offices, who else were they going to rely on? "The enemy"?
Note the way the professor
contradicts himself: first, he says, "Henry Morgenthau... did not... rely "on
selected missionary reports..." Then he writes, "Morgenthau... relied primarily
on... reports... of honest American missionaries." All in the space of the same
paragraph! We have to assume this conscientious scholar would never want to deliberately
mislead us, so we must conclude he has slipped up with a "small (error) of simple
As far as the "honest American
missionaries"... we'll be getting to that incredible assertion in a moment.
When the Earl of Crewe replied on October 5,
1915, in the House of Lords to the Earl of Cromer’s question as to whether H.M.’s
Government had received any information confirmatory of the statements made in the
press in relating to "renewed massacres of Armenians," he based his
information on a report of the British Consul at Batum, which in turn relied on a
Tiflis newspaper, probably The Horizon, "an Armenian propagandist organ and
therefore quite unreliable."
C.F. Dixon-Johnson, British author; the above is an
evaluation of his 1916 book, "The
Armenians." While the consul in question is not American, it provides insight
as to how all Western and Armenian-sympathetic consuls derived their information.
In fact, just to be sure,
Morgenthau directed his consuls to personally verify the Armenian killings in each of
their regions and to carefully draw distinctions in their reports between what they
heard--even from reliable sources--and what they actually witnessed.
That's interesting. I hope that's
true. No source has been provided, and given Ambassador Morgenthau's willingness to play
fast and loose with the facts, I can't imagine his heart would have been in this
directive. (Assuming he gave such a directive at all, which I would doubt.) After all,
Henry Morgenthau blindly allowed his Armenian aide to rewrite his own letters and reports,
and he allowed his ghost writer to use quotation marks for statements coming out of the
mouths of Ottoman officials (in Ambassador Morgenthau's Story) which was a definite
unethical no-no, for what purports to be a historic account.
ADDENDUM, 3- 2007: Papazian was wrong again! One of the more ethical consuls, W.
Hollis Stanley (Beirut, 1911-17),
complained that while he "confined [him]self to statements of actual fact ... such
reports of facts and actual occurrences were not well received by the Embassy."
Hollis explained that Morgenthau's Armenian interpreter "largely influenced"
the U.S. Embassy.
When Sultan Abdulhamit II,
known in history as "the Damned" or "the Bloody Sultan," came to the
throne in 1876...
Whose history was that? History is a
matter of perspective. Alexander the Great, for example, is looked upon as something close
to "the Damned" by Iranians. However, the ancient Macedonian conqueror is
revered in Greece.
Pictured in the obscure 1942?
British book, "Grand
Turk," this still is apparently from a movie.
(ADDENDUM '06: yes! See "Abdul
massacred hundreds of thousands of Armenians throughout the Empire during his reign...
Let us give a little backdrop, here.
In 1880 the Turk-hating Gladstone became
Prime Minister in England. Two years earlier, Britain had sent military Consuls to the
main eastern provinces (to supervise reforms and to monitor the Russians), just like we
know the American Consuls to have been scattered throughout the Empire in the early
Twentieth Century. The Armenian
Patriarch said to the British Ambassador (Sir Henry Layard) in 1877 that he would be
behind rebellions to gain the attention of Europe. Layard reported intrigues originating
from abroad were inciting the Armenians to rebel against the Babiali (F.O. 424/74, No.
Whether Abdul Hamid deserves the black reputation that has
been pinned to him is a matter for debate. If he was “the bloody assassin” and the
“red Sultan” to most people, he was the hard-working, conscientious, much harassed
but personally charming ruler to others. Those who have spoken for him have pointed
out that the Sultan felt his Empire threatened by the Armenians, who, he knew or at
least believed, were in league with the Young Turks, the Greeks, Macedonians, etc.
They believe that Abdul Hamid was the victim of what we moderns call a persecution
William Langer, The Diplomacy of
Holdwater: In fact, Abdul Hamid
actually pardoned his would-be
Armenian assassins, when they attempted to bomb him in 1905; can you imagine? U.S.
President Ronald Reagan did not pardon his would-be assassin... how many leaders would
find it in their hearts to pardon somebody who was trying to KILL them? Perhaps the
Sultan was not such a bad man, after all.
Captain Clayton, the Consul at
Van, wrote in his Oct. 12, 1880 report that Russian Armenian associations were
readying to send weapons to Ottoman Armenians, and by year's end that the Russian
Consul-General claimed the Armenians were preparing to revolt. Erzurum's Consul,
Everett, provided similar information. Izmir's Consul, Col. Wilson, wrote the
Armenians were desirous of using force. Armenian revolutionary societies would
spring up, like 1878's "Black Cross," similar to the Ku Klux Klan. The
Revolutionary Hunchak Party, formed around 1886, had as its first goal to obtain the
independence of Turkish Armenia. In 1890, the Revolutionary Armenian Federation, or
Dashnaks, came into being, a terrorist organization since its inception.
British Consul at Erzurum, to a question put forth by
Sydney Whitman (Turkish Memories, 1914, p. 94) said "not one Armenian
would have been killed" had Armenian revolutionary committees not incited
the people to revolt. A New York newspaper correspondent reported on the ridiculous
embellishments of Armenian tales of woe in his 1895 booklet, The Armenian Troubles and Where The
Responsibility Lies. Sirs Edwin Pears and Mark Sykes, who were likely Armenian
sympathizers (the latter wrote the propaganda booklet for Wellington House,
"The Clean Fighting Turk: a Spurious Claim" to mar the honorable image of
the Turkish soldier), had thoughts
on these revolutionaries as well.
In 1895, there were 22
provocations throughout different provinces of the empire in the last three months
alone. In Diyarbakir, the second of November, shots were fired on Muslims praying in
the mosque, and a fire was later started, destroying mosques and shops, 90% of which
belonged to Muslims. (Carton 313, File 70, 10/28/1311 telegram). The last incident
of the uprisings, on August 26, 1896, was the famous raid on the Ottoman Bank, which
was mercilessly bombed. Secretary F.A. Baker wrote, "Their hatred of the Turks
was beyond all description...it had been their (the Dashnaks') intention to kill all
the Turks." (F.O. 424/188, No. 174, enclosure 4.) The Dashnaks would attempt
the assassination of their sultan on July 21, 1905. Had they succeeded, Abdulhamid
would certainly have correctly been called "the Bloody Sultan."
(Interestingly, the Sultan
pardoned the assailants.)
C. F. Dixon-Johnson sheds further revealing light on what transpired with the Ottoman
went through the city that the Armenians had risen in revolt and were massacring the
other citizens. Many persons armed themselves with cudgels and, joined by a
cosmopolitan mob from Pera and Galata, many of whom were Greek anxious to pay off
old scores on their hated commercial rivals, wreaked vengeance on the Armenian
population. The soldiers and police took no part in the killing. It is estimated
that about 1,000 persons perished, including those killed by the bombs and revolvers
of the conspirators."
Well! Many of the
murderers of the Armenians were GREEK!
A British journalist comments on a 1989
four-volume work entitled, "British Documents on
Ottoman Armenians" that Professor Papazian could have consulted to get the
lowdown on the true nature of the Armenians during the 1890s, if he were a true
scholar. The journalist concludes, "The Armenian revolutionaries were doing
their best to incite incidents throughout Anatolia and in all the incidents the
aggressors were Armenians."
The period starting with the
1890 Erzurum incident and ending with the 1896 Van rebellion is known as the period
of massacres. The Armenian deaths:
David Marshall Lang (The
Armenians, a People in Exile, 1981): 200,000, between 1894-1896.
Pastermadjian (1949), 100,000-110,000.
J. Misseskian (or Missaskian, A
Searchlight on the Armenian Question, 1950): at least 300,000.
Lord Bryce ("Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire," 1916,
preface): "More than" 100,000 (in 1895-96).
Kurkjian (A History of Armenia, 1958, p. 296), 100,000;
mentions British Blue Book "conservative estimate": 63,000.
Johannes Lepsius: 88,243.
and Europe: An Indictment, London, 1897, 330-31; in a preface entitled “A
Later Note,” xix, Lepsius added another 10,000 or so to the total,)
The Dashank terrorists of the Ottoman Bank takeover, in their demand note: 100,000
(up until August, 1896), as related in Christopher Walker's Armenia: The Survival
of a Nation, p. 165.
The estimate of the great powers: 50,000, from Walker's book; footnoted
British source: "Turkey no. 2 (1896), p. 210. " (An extra 6-7,000
msy be added for 1896, per "Bliss" entry, below. Gurun's honest accounting
for 1896 is an extra 3,715, per last entry for "The Ottomans' figure, below.)
German ambassador (Dec. 1895 account): 60,000-80,000.
G. Hepworth, "Through Armenia on Horseback": 50,000.
Bliss: 35,032, or
approximately 42,000, when the 6,000-7,000 dead from the 1896 incidents are
A. W. Terrell, American
Ambassador: 37,095, as of 4 Feb.
approximately 44,000. (US
Nat'l Archives, Rec. Grp. 59, Despatches from United States Ministers to Turkey,
1818-1906, Microfilm Publication M46, roll 61, enc. 796)
"[Abdul Hamit] caused some 30,000 Armenians to be massacred in cold
blood by the savage Kurds, not because he disliked them as a race — his own mother
was an Armenian — but because he thought that they were becoming politically
dangerous, and because he wished to nourish the spirit of Pan-Islamism with a little
Christian blood." Sir Ellis Ashmead-Bartlett, With the Turks in Thrace,
“[N]o more than 29,000 Armenians killed,” Hans Barth, “Die Turkenhetze,”
Die Zukunft 5, no. 16 (Jan. 16, 1897), 132; this article from the weekly
journal was later expanded into a book entitled, Turke, Wehre Dich!
("Turk, Defend Yourself!") 2nd printing (Leipzig, 1898).
The Ottomans' figure for 1895: 8,717. Adding 3,715 (Van: 1,715 and 2,000 for the
Ottoman Bank) and 1,000 for Zeitun, the total becomes 13,432.
"...Even if we are to
include the Armenians killed by the bullets of the Armenian rebels as having been
killed by Turks, the number of Armenians who died during the rebellions in the 1890s
will hardly reach 20,000," wrote Kamuran Gurun, in The Armenian File,
where almost all of the above information was taken. "There is a great
difference between 20,000 and 300,000...it would be fair... to remember how many
people lost their lives in rebellions or disorders in their own or other countries,
and think how much right they have to use the term massacre."
Gurun estimates the number of
Muslim dead during these rebellions in a two-year period is not less than 5,000,
most killed without provocation, so that the rest would be aroused to attack the
Armenians. "This is the real murder, the real massacre."
Lending support to the
lower figure is the excellent 1895 report British Captain C. B. Norman prepared,
"The Armenians Unmasked."
As one example among others, Captain Norman wrote that "only five lives were
lost" in a town (Berecik) where 2,000 Armenians were supposed to have
been murdered. While the Armenian teacher Thoumanian stated that 800 had perished in
the riots of Amasya, "A German resident and an Armenian merchant, both present
during the disturbances, fixed the number at 53." As regards the number of the
destitute, the author asserts that one-tenth of the Armenian Patriarch’s
estimate was true. The captain further wrote that "none of these (massacre)
stories have been corroborated by a single European eye-witness." (GEE!
Just like in the 1915 "genocide." A 1916 British counterpart to Capt.
Norman during World War I was the aforementioned C.F. Dixon-Johnson, who
reacted to a similarly falsified massacre story in "The Armenians" as such: "How
25,000 Armenians could have been sent from Mersin out of a total Christian
population of 7,279 [at least one-half of whom were Greeks], is difficult to
understand") Captain Norman's 1895 report is an incredibly eye-opening one,
and provides the near-exact blueprint to Armenian tactics and treachery
during the 1915 "genocide."
Which is correct, Kamuran
Gurun's less than 20,000, or Dennis
Papazian's "hundreds of thousands"? Regardless of the
figure, it's inherently dishonest of the Armenian professor to make it appear as
though "The Bloody Sultan" just decided to kill off the poor, helpless
Armenians on a whim.
The real Abdülhamid II had a
Was it perhaps the genes of his Armenian mother?
Now the ironic twist: the Committee of Union and Progress, having
managed a successful revolt against the Sultan, soon turned on the Armenians, their
former confederates. Before their revolution, the C.U.P. had preached Ottomanism, in
their view a kind of multi-nationalism with all peoples of the empire equal under
the law. After a coup d'état in 1913, following the disaster of the Balkan Wars,
the C.U.P was captured by a radical nationalistic clique that demanded "Turkey
for the Turks." The clear implication of this new radical nationalistic, if not
out-and-out racist policy, was that the minorities, especially the Armenians, who
were the most internally integrated of Ottoman Christians, had to be eradicated.
As much as the Armenians love
to insist what made the Ottomans turn on the Armenians (in the Armenians' desperate
search for MOTIVES) was simply the Turks' racist bent, it would have been ridiculous
for the Turks to have engaged in a systematic extermination of their Armenians
during the matter-of-life-and-death war years, to target such an important national
resource as the Armenians. Maybe some of these C.U.P. members had mad dreams (there
are extremists in every administration; Attorney General John Ashcroft is one during
the American administration of George W. Bush, zealously chipping away at American
freedoms and liberties), but I have yet to run into reliable evidence where the
Young Turks utilized such as a matter of national policy. Dr. Papazian's footnote
leads to primarily Armenian references, which is odd, since it should not have been
difficult for him to find some of the omnipresent non-Armenian Armenian-sympathizing
sources. Because Armenians are so into
the distortion of truth, anyone would be a fool to accept what they have to say
at face value, unless their facts are verified by clearly impartial sources.
However, let us examine what one of the two non-Armenian sources in the footnote had
to say. Robert Melson, whom I presume is non-Armenian (although I can imagine his
actual name to be "Melsonian"), "believes that although Armenians and
Jews were given a difficult time in previous regimes, only in the revolutionary
C.U.P. and Nazi regimes would they be subject to genocide." EXACTLY! So then
the $64,000 question is.... why weren't the Ottoman Jews subject to genocide?
Professor Hovannisian was caught off guard with this question in 1988... here is how he responded.)
After writing the above, I got a much better bead on Robert Melson. He, along with a
few other non-Armenian professors, are suspiciously more "Armenian" than the Armenians themselves!)
(ADDENDUM. 1-08: Regarding the distastefully put remark made in the caption
above, as to whether the Sultan's mother was Armenian, here is one man's opinion on
"The prophecy used
to be current (though it has long died out in the development of the Mohammedan
revival) that the Empire of Turkey was to end with an Armenian Sultan, and this was
the Armenian Sultan. This strange saying was explained in several ways, some of them
too scandalous for belief or quotation ; but the best attested account was that his
mother was an Armenian by birth, who had adopted Mohammedanism. This account, widely
believed in 1880-1882, is given as indubitable in the North American Review,
Sept., 1896, p. 280, by Dr. Cyrus Hamlin, who knows Turkey from thirty-five years'
residence as few men know it. In more recent years the authorised statement is that
the Sultan's mother was a Georgian or Circassian—people vary as to the exact race.
The important point is that every one recognises how essentially unlike Turkish is
the Sultan's character; and every one feels that the explanation lies in the
inheritance from his mother. For my own part, the Armenian origin seems to me proved
by the results : only Armenian parentage gives the clue to the Sultan's character,
his unwearied carefulness, his prevision, his personal timidity (which keeps him
always a prisoner within his own palace walls), his fear of the Turks, his hatred
for the Armenians, and the other qualities already described."
Impressions of Turkey During Twelve Years' Wanderings, William Mitchell
Ramsay ["Professor in Aberdeen University"], London, 1897.)
Ambassador Elekdag maintains
that Toynbee, in the penultimate book he wrote, Acquaintances, repudiated his
earlier view of a premeditated, government sponsored massacre of the Armenian
people, repented his earlier bad opinion of the Young Turks, and made a final
confession of his earlier error. Furthermore, Elekdag uses Toynbee's Acquaintances
to show that Lord Bryce's Blue Book was intended to serve as an instrument of
British propaganda--with the implication that it was a dishonest and untrustworthy
piece of work.
Professor Papazian cites
passages from "Acquaintances" showing Toynbee was not 100% with the Turks.
Could be. I haven't read "Acquaintances," but I'll bet if I had a copy, I
could find passages that would prove damning to the Armenians.
The young Arnold Toynbee's
services were solicited by Lord Bryce for their nation's W.W.I. propaganda arm,
Wellington House. Here is what Professor Justin McCarthy says, in his excellent overview of the insidious
The Wellington House brief
was simple, the same brief as that of all propagandists. They were to make the
enemies look as bad as possible and make their friends, and especially the British
themselves, look as good as could be. Their main focus was, naturally, Germany, but
much effort was expended against the Turks. Propaganda was not considered to be a
gentleman's game. Toynbee himself remarked that he would like to get out of it for
that reason. Nevertheless it was something that had to be done and British gentlemen
did it. They were probably always ashamed of their work, however, as indicated by
the fact that they destroyed all the records of the Propaganda Office immediately
after the war.
Dr. Papazian can quote
Toynbee's declarations of innocence as
much as he wants... Toynbee's conscience was likely very compromised, as he
obviously knew he was engaged in the presentation of false information. It would be
human for anyone to want to be seen in as good a light as possible, and therefore
make all kinds of excuses (the champions of that part of human nature are the
Arnold Toynbee, many years
Day in and day out, Toynbee must have received horrifying reports
from sources such as Morgenthau and the missionaries (yes, the honorable Ambassador
Morgenthau cooperated fully with the gang of false information-spreaders: Bryce,
Toynbee and Lepsius)... even if the young scholar and
later-to-be-respected-historian realized (at the time, or later) that many of the
reports were nonsense, how could he not have been affected by the cumulative effect
of such unimaginable horror stories?
Even when I read these amazing concocted tales of the worst atrocities and
brutalities the human mind could conjure up (in Armenian & Greek web sites, of
course) my eyes start glazing over, and I start thinking, why, those miserable
Turks! Toynbee's deeply-rooted belief system must have been affected, as Dr.
Papazian quotes him as having written: "The deportations [of the Armenians] had
been carried out by orders from the Government at Istanbul..." Well, what were
these orders? Such orders are exactly the kind of magical "smoking gun"
Armenians are in a tizzy to get a hold of... so much, they have made up such orders, for lack of any in
existence. If Toynbee knew of such definitive orders that were legitimate, do you
think they would have not been used at the Malta Tribunal, when the British were
desperately searching, far and wide, for legitimate proof? For two-and-a-half-years,
going as far as the shores of America? Via a team of Armenian researchers?
If the Blue Book is faulty,
then those faults must be pointed out. Otherwise, the work must be accepted as
I'm hearing a familiar tune.
Can you all hear it? Yes, it's the "Armenian AND? Anthem"!
Can't blame Professor Papazian
too much... it must be gut-wrenching to dismiss such a deliriously delicious
anti-Turkish work of B.S., after it had worked so beautifully to pull the wool over
the eyes of many in the past... and still can work to obscure the truth, as long as
"responsible" scholars such as Professor Papazian can help to keep what's
left of its integrity alive.
One sign of Toynbee's
questionable credibility is that he reportedly gave the figure of 761,000 as
Armenians living in
Anatolia in his 1915 book, "Nationality and the War." After being
positioned in the Propaganda Department of the British Ministry of Defense in 1916,
the figure Toynbee gave in his Blue Book was 1.5 million... DOUBLE. (The Armenians
of the Ottoman Empire were mainly concentrated in Anatolia.)
Yet, in a letter said to have been written by Toynbee (that I came
across in an Armenian web site... of course), the historian had the gall to provide
the following validation for the phony-baloney Blue Book:.
It is true that
the British Government's motive in asking Lord Bryce to compile the Blue Book was
propaganda. But Lord Bryce's motive in undertaking it, and mine in working on it for
him, was to make the truth known, and the evidence was good: the witnesses were all
American missionaries with no political axe to grind. So the Blue Book, together
with Lepsius' book, does give a true account.
With... no... political...
axe... to... grind..?
It is difficult to fathom that
Toynbee must have honestly believed these words. If he really meant what he said, I
suppose we must conclude even smart people can delude themselves... but this level
of delusion would be mind-boggling. After the war, Toynbee knew the Blue Book was
largely discredited. And Toynbee had to realize the missionaries' motivations were
far from honest.
Missionaries failed to convert
Turks; their resulting axe to grind combined with their already built-in bias
against Muslims led to their documented fired-up charges in blind sympathy with the
Armenians, their fellow Christians who were more open to conversion to Catholicism
and Protestantism. The missionaries' "political" aim: the more they made
the Turks look like monsters, the more they appeared as heroes back home, and the
more money they could bilk from
their Christian brethren.
The poor character of the
missionaries have been attested to by many Western observers. U.S. Rear-Admiral Kirkland called them a
"bad lot," and questioned the credibility of their appeals.
Regarding the "unutterable" horror stories the missionaries (and
Armenians) made up, C. F.
Dixon-Johnson quoted Odysseus:
"These are often spoken
of as being so terrible that the details cannot be given in print, but I believe
them to be largely the invention of morbid and somewhat prurient brains. Medical
testimony makes in certain that no human being could survive the tortures which some
Armenians are said to have suffered without dying."
Doesn't that hit it exactly on the nose: "morbid
and ... prurient"; sexually repressed religious zealots often have an amazing
inclination to imagine the most hideous scenarios, familiar to most of us who have
an awareness of the warped and wicked witch hunters, from the Middle Ages. (I don't
know how true this figure is, but the silent film, "Witchcraft Through the
Ages" claimed eight million lost their lives over the course of two centuries,
through such persecutions. Even if the actual figure was much less, it would still
be a far cry from the handful I'd have imagined burned at the stake, here and
there.) And it's just like Mr. Dixon-Johnson says... how could ANYONE have survived
these unimaginable and disgusting stories? How could there have been even a single
And yet, for example, when Albert
Mackenzie (a maniacally Turcophobic member of, most likely, the Near East
Relief) attempts to "verify" an inconceivably horrifying account (reported
in the great Lord Viscount Bryce's "The Treatment of the Armenians in the
Ottoman Empire"... better known as "The Blue Book"), he manages to
find a survivor from this particular "deportation." (Once again, for those
who respect the English language: What happened to the Armenians was a
"relocation," or "resettlement." A deportation means to expel or
banish a resident outside a country's borders.) Mind you, we are told there
were only 185 survivors making it to Aleppo out of the original 21,000 (!)... and
given what the story had them unbelievably suffer through, not many of the 185 could
have lasted very long. If all of these unfortunate souls were so completely wiped
out, what would the chances have been for any survivor to be found? UNLESS... could
it be possible there were many more survivors than we are customarily told?
Aurora Mardiganian somehow
survived The Terrible Turk
Then there is that incredible survivor who overcame all odds, when
"four millions" poor Armenians perished, Aurora Mardiganian... who would
go on to star in 1919's RAVISHED ARMENIA. (That must be her on the poster. No, I
mean the lily-white one, not the monster holding the sword.) Her co-star would be
the self-christened hero of the Armenian people, the egomaniacal Ambassador
We're not done with the
unconscionable missionaries; I'd just like to say I appreciated Toynbee's quote
above, since I have not read the Blue Book (and I doubt I'd have the stomach to read
it; however, I did make it through The
Blight of Asia, so perhaps I don't give myself enough credit); now that I have
learned that "the witnesses were all American
missionaries," we can safely conclude the entire literary debacle is one
serious exercise in baloney. (Rhymes with Frank Pallone, a U.S. "Armenian"
politician in non-Armenian's clothing.)
Langer, using materials
translated by his Armenian assistants, argues that the Armenian revolutionary
parties at the end of the nineteenth century provoked the government of Abdulhamit
in the expectation of massacres. Massacres of Christians, allegedly, would alarm the
European powers and bring about their intervention in behalf of the dying
Armenians.(30) We will not discuss the validity of the Langer thesis here...
What are you saying, Professor
Papazian? Are you suggesting that the Armenian terrorist organizations did not have
such a plan in mind? Even though this plan has been attested to by the many
impartial Western, often anti-Turk British, sources mentioned above? Even though Armenian historians have admitted to such
plans? Why are you using the word "allegedly," Professor Papazian? Have
you no... (choke!)... honor?
For a historical overview of
the motivations and roots of these Armenian revolutionary parties, consult Paul Henze's excellent study.
Here, too, is an excerpt from William Langer's The Diplomacy of
Elekdag calls Cyrus Hamlin, the
long ago president of Robert College in Constantinople, as a witness to prove the
nefarious motives of the Armenian "terrorists" who, after all, he claims,
tweaked Abdulhamit until he massacred the Armenians. First, we should note that
Hamlin, a well-informed and honest man who served for many years in the Ottoman
capital, died on August 8, 1900.(32) We cannot under any circumstances, therefore,
accept his testimony on events after that date. Second, the actions of a few
revolutionaries cannot be used, by any rational standard, as an excuse to destroy a
whole people. The fault would be in Abdulhamit and not in the revolutionaries.
The most exaggerated Armenian
estimate (listed above, at least) of the Armenian dead during
the 1890s was 300,000, a figure that surely had no basis in truth, as much as Dr.
Papazian figuratively froths in the mouth to have you believe it. (He would like you
to believe probably an even higher figure, given his assertion of "hundreds of
thousands" massacred.) Kamuran Gurun reasonably states the figure could not
have surpassed 20,000. Even if you cannot bring yourself to accept that the barbaric
Turks would not have been content with this comparatively much lower figure, and go
with a figure presented by the Turk-hating German pastor, Dr. Lepsius (near 90,000),
that would not entail the destruction of a "whole people."
Who killed the Armenians in
the1890s? Was it Abdulhamid's governmental forces? NO, other than those who were not
killed by fellow Armenians (we'll be getting to that in a second), it was mostly the
enraged civilian Turks/Muslims, in retaliation for the Armenians' murder of their
own. JUST LIKE DURING THE "GENOCIDE" PERIOD OF 1915.
Dr. Papazian can lay fault with
"Abdulhamit and not... the revolutionaries" as much as he wants, but the
fact remains that not one Armenian would have lost his life if
not for the actions of these "few" revolutionaries. JUST LIKE DURING THE
"GENOCIDE" PERIOD OF 1915.
As far as not accepting
testimony from before the war years "under any circumstances," I beg to
differ. (And that's putting it mildly. Let's say a young teen-ager inflicts physical
harm on her father. Would we strictly take the violent incident on its own
merit and conclude the child is a monster, or would we look into the background to
see if the father had reason to provoke the incident? Those who are into the truth
would undoubtedly choose to investigate.) The Armenians' historical motivations and
behavior are of vital importance to understand why they behaved the way they did
during the war years; there is a pattern to their actions and methods of operation
that was exactly the same during the "genocide" period of 1915 as it was
during the 1890s and even the
1790s. Dr. Papazian is afraid to have the unwary and easily fooled not discover
the history of his people's treachery.
There is testimony from
Armenians themselves about the far-reaching effects of these terrorists. It's true,
most Armenians WERE "good." However, what could the ordinary, loyal
Armenian citizen do when these mad dog Hunchaks and Dashnaks sent very clear
murderous warnings to the Armenian community but to keep quiet, cooperate, finance
and comply? This kind of intimidation is still at work within the Armenian
communities in the diaspora, today. Here is an excellent analysis,
regarding the extent of Armenian vs. Armenian terror. So when Dr. Papazian makes it
seem like, oh, they were just a couple of isolated revolutionaries, he is far from
being forthright. As in the 1890s, it's terrible the innocent Armenians suffered
during the "Genocide" period. However, when nearly the whole community is
in support of their treacherous leaders, willingly or unwillingly, how could any
government separate the wheat from the chaff? (Especially during the desperate war
years, with enemies at four or five fronts, in a bankrupt nation with few resources
to spare?) These terrorists fired
the first shot, and the Ottoman Armenians' Muslim neighbors retaliated.
Innocents died on both sides. None of this would have happened if the terrorist
leaders did not muddy the waters (Again... Armenians and Greeks act, and the
Turks... after usually and patiently bearing with the bad acts for a long while... react.)
So, Dr. Papazian: as you already very well know, the "few" revolutionaries
you speak of were not simply incidental, isolated troublemaking terrorists, like
America's Unabomber. They were part of a full-blown network, and they had the
support of the bulk of the Ottoman Armenians... even if some of these Ottoman
Armenians did not want to give them their support. (Although many of them certainly
gave their support enthusiastically.)
If you want to lay blame for the "Genocide," painful though it obviously
is, you must look in your own backyard.
published article, to our knowledge, was printed in 1898 in the Proceedings of
the American Antiquarian Society...
In excerpts from this article,
Dr. Papazian informs us Cyrus Hamlin pooh-poohs the actions of the revolutionaries
and lays the blame of the massacres on Abdulhamid. I'm indebted to the professor for
opening my eyes to this subject, as when I included (in this web site) Dr. Hamlin's 1893 article which appeared
in The Congregationist, I thought he would be the rare missionary above the
anti-Turkish propaganda. Well... once a narrow-minded missionary, always a
missionary, I suppose.
Now I'm wondering how this
"well-informed and honest man" could have made such a 180-degree turn, in
essence, in the span of just a few years. First, he's genuinely concerned about the
dangers of the Hunchaks ("...to the missionary work and to the whole Christian
population of certain parts of the Turkish Empire." Hamlin doesn't give a rat's
tail about the potential dangers to the Turks, the main victims of these
terrorists), and the next moment — at least in the excerpts Dr. Papazian was kind
enough to share with us — he makes it sound like the Hunchaks posed no threat,
Animal indigenous to Armenia:
The Armenian Viper.
To be fair, we must admit that
Ambassador Elekdag has unearthed one article that genuinely indicts the Armenians,
even in context. It was written by Arthur Moss and Florence Gilliam and published in
the Nation in 1923, long after the Genocide of 1915-16. But before we can accept
their testimony, we must establish the credentials of the authors. Are they
eyewitnesses? No. Are they scholars who have done serious research about the past?
No. On investigation, we discover that Moss and Gilliam are two American expatriates
of the '20s who edited a monthly magazine, called Gargoyle, which was published in
Paris by expatriates who hated America. They are neither eyewitnesses nor scholars.
First, thanks must be extended
to the professor in his desire "to be fair."
Now here is the Armenian mind
at work: "Uh-oh. A rare Western viewpoint that runs contrary to the Armenian
Con Job. Quick: How can we discredit the author so that we may ignore the
The professor goes on to...
hold on to your seats, everyone, this is good... cite the magazine's editor writing
a somewhat sympathetic report regarding a Russian "ex-patriarch, Tikhon,
awaiting trial in Moscow." Because Dr. Papazian finds what the editor of The
Nation has to say objectionable, he concludes:
"...The opinions of the
editor regarding the slandered Tikhon and that of Moss and Gilliam regarding the
murdered Armenians are of equal accuracy and value, and are thus of little
consequence as evidence."
Now doesn't that take
Getting back to the professor's
condemnation of the article: are the authors eyewitnesses? No. However, neither was
Ambassador Morgenthau, and yet Dr. Papazian has no trouble with accepting
Morgenthau's word as the God-honest truth. Are the authors scholars who have done
serious research about the past? "No."
How does Dr. Papazian know what
kind of research these authors have conducted? Of course, he has no idea, and is
merely offering his opinion.
Dr. Papazian complains their
article is "less than two pages in
length and unencumbered by any scholarly trappings." Since when does the length of an article determine its worth? And
the professor needs to bear in mind this is a magazine article, intended for a
general audience... such articles often don't have the luxury of sounding like an
academic paper, loaded with footnotes.
As far as his snobbily
dismissing the authors because they are not "scholars," is he implying
people must have a Ph.D. before they can dare opine on the topic of the Armenian
"Genocide"? That doesn't necessarily indicate the worth of an article. For
example, Dr, Papazian must have a Ph.D., and his article is as biased as they come!
I don't know anything about
this "Gargoyle" magazine the authors are said to have edited in Paris...
but even if these authors hated America, which I'd doubt, how would that apply to
the worth of the article? Is Dr. Papazian suggesting an author must love America in
order for comments regarding the Armenian "Genocide" be valid? If such is
the case, he must not have agreed with the decision of the French court to take
Bernard Lewis to trial... and the misleading
article about the trial's outcome that appeared in the French newspaper, Le
Monde... since the French have a habit of turning up their noses at affaires
In their article, Moss and Gilliam deny the
validity of the Bryce-Toynbee collection and write, apparently in all seriousness:
"In Turkey, all three main religions--Mohammedanism, Judaism, and
Christianity--are on an equal footing. . . . A Catholic cannot go as far politically
in secular America as a Christian can go in so-called theocratic Turkey."
Artin Dadyan Pasha, Ottoman
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
(1880-1887), is alleged to have
worked more for the Armenian cause
than for the Sultan... probably when
he returned to the same position in
the early 20th Century...but the key
word here is "alleged."
The authors dared to deny the fiction of the Bryce report by saying:
"The Bryce reports have been proved to be without tangible evidence and to
have been based entirely on hearsay." I've got news for Professor
Papazian... the authors did not make this up. The Bryce reports were largely
discredited in the immediate post-war years, as the report cited unreliable
evidence...particularly what evaluators had a problem with were accounts of German
atrocities in occupied Belgium during 1914. (Post-war evaluators mostly focused on
the German allegations, because few cared about the Turks.) However, let's be frank
here. It's not like this is the first time Professor Papazian has heard of this, so
he needn't insult our intelligence by pretending to be so shocked. And as far as the
claim about a Catholic's political possibilities in America that the professor finds
so unbelievable... wasn't it widely believed that John F. Kennedy had the odds
stacked against him in being elected president, by virtue of being a Catholic? As it
was, he only narrowly won. And that was 1960... how many Catholics were in the
political arena in 1923 America? Meanwhile, Ottoman
Armenians held high positions in the government, especially in the 19th
Century... such as the pictured Artin Dadyan Pasha. Let's get it straight, once and
for all, Armenians and Greeks: the one thing you cannot fault the Ottoman Empire on
(although the Nation article is alluding to today's very early Republic of Turkey,
regarding this point) is lacking
freedom of religion.
At any rate, the reader can judge the worth of the
article that appeared in The Nation for him/herself. I just reread the article,
and contrary to the attempted-wool-pulling-over-the-eyes views of the Armenian
professor, the article was written most legitimately, and deserves credit for
running contrary to the prevailing views of the time. (And this time.)
Elekdag boldly declares a war
ex post facto on the United States in order to make Morgenthau officially an
"enemy." Ambassador Morgenthau's Story, was, says Elekdag, "published
in 1918 when World War I was raging and the Ottoman Empire was officially the
'enemy.' But, as a matter of fact, the Ottoman Empire did not declare war on the
United States; and the United States certainly did not declare war on the Ottoman
Empire... The United States did not even break off diplomatic relations with Turkey
until 1917, not until after the Armenian Genocide was effectively completed, and
then only to show its disapproval of the Turkish atrocities.
1918 was the last year of WWI
and we all know Americans were active participants in the war by 1918... and we all
know which side America was fighting for. Besides, must war be declared in order to
be considered an enemy? By no means was the United States friendly to the Ottoman
Empire even when she was a neutral state (I believe it was 1917 when the United
States joined the war, but I didn't check; definitely by 1918); her sympathies lay
squarely with Great Britain, a nation chiefly — among the Allies — desiring to
wipe the Ottoman Empire off the map. British propaganda was freely used in the
United States, the intent of which was to feverishly get the USA to join in the war
against the Central Powers. The effectiveness of British propaganda grew
astronomically when the British destroyed the cable from Germany to America; as a result,
British censors controlled the news sent to the USA, and the German and Ottoman side
were never heard. Not that hearing the Ottoman side would have made much
difference... there was a deep-seated prejudice against the Ottomans, from a racial
and religious perspective. Additionally, Ambassador Morgenthau fully cooperated with
Wellington House, as he himself admitted in the Red Cross Magazine of March,1919:
"Much of the material which I collected has already been published in the
excellent volume of documentary material collected by Viscount Bryce." The
attitude of the United States toward the Turks was clearly that of an enemy, and
Professor Papazian is pathetically grasping at straws, here.
Elekdag appeals to the
testimony of Admiral Mark Bristol of the United States Navy.
The professor attempts to
completely discredit the admiral by painting a portrait of him as a racist and a
liar. How sad. (Even a man who might have hated Turks more than Dr. Papazian, if
such is possible... U.S. Consul George
Horton... said about Bristol: "honest, brave, generous, with
frank and winning manners.") Admiral Bristol was leagues apart from a man
like Morgenthau, because Bristol looked at the area's players with an even-handed
view, which is what Dr. Papazian cannot stand; he is so spoiled with the true
racists like Morgenthau (Bristol saw through the "Myth of Innocence" of
the Armenians and Greeks, and rightly criticized them. For that, he is branded a
racist and pro-Turkish. Morgenthau did not even regard the Turks as human beings, in
his writings), and their unabashed championing of the Armenian cause, he must do
whatever he can to discredit men like Bristol. Turk-hating men like Morgenthau were
the unfortunate rule during this period; that likely includes his successor, whom
Dr. Papazian goes on to later cite.
I already addressed Dr.
Papazian's problems with Admiral Bristol in the Armenian FAQ page. If the reader wishes to learn what kind of a
man Bristol was, turn to the long,
private letter he wrote to James Barton. The man's integrity is clear to see.
Meanwhile, you can visit the page dedicated to Ambassador Morgenthau, and judge from his writings what manner
of man he was. A 1920 article he wrote for the Independent, "Shall Armenia
Perish?" has been reproduced... and it speaks volumes about his incredibly
If tiny Armenia was truly the first
Christian state on earth why in the world doesn't your state owned church teach
love and forgiveness? Even in Christ's time there was the separation of church
and state. Armenia must separate its church and state if the true message of
Christ is to be taught there. This is why your church has engaged in terrorism
from the mid-1800s up to and including this very day. The Armenian Church is
nothing more than a front and an extension of your state run terror machine.
Devout Baptist Sam Weems, in response
American missionaries were the
flower of the New England and Midwest American intelligentsia... Most of them
had advanced degrees, and many were physicians... Missionary reports, selected or
not, all tell the same general story: Armenians all over Anatolia were expelled from
their homes, slaughtered and massacred, and the remnant driven into the Syrian desert to die... But did the American
missionaries tell the truth? One would think so. We certainly will not join Elekdag
to call these God-fearing men and women liars without seeing strong evidence to
support that contention. Since Elekdag presents no proof to the contrary, we must
accept the missionary reports as dependable evidence...
Good Lord. (And I don't mean
The professor is attempting to
use the same rationale that hoodwinked the American public and their Christian
sensibilities during the war years.
Let's get something straight:
to be "God-fearing" does not always make people moral and ethical.
Historically, in fact, the reverse has too often proven to be the case. Torquemada
was God-fearing. Cotton Mather was God-fearing. The priests who accompanied the
conquistador Pizarro and dishonorably tricked the Inca god-chief, which led to the
Incas' extinction, were God-fearing. Those who murder doctors who perform abortions
are God-fearing. The Taliban is God-fearing. His Holiness Karekin II,
Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians, who honored the cowardly
mass-murderer and "Jew-Hunter" Dro (in an official 2000 ceremony), is God-fearing.
(More often, those who are not
crazily God-fearing are much more moral
If these missionaries were the
product of intelligentsia, all the more reason why their lack of scruples was so
Professor McCarthy: "Propagandists could play upon the great respect Americans held
for the missionaries who had gone to the Ottoman Empire, and who often appeared in
the newspapers as national heroes for a Christian Nation... Studying what they
preached unfortunately takes a long time. You must read much truly disgusting
literature. What they wrote was not what one would expect of clergymen. Yet one
reason they were so successful is exactly that people expected that clergymen would
more, please visit the "missionaries"
Dr. Papazian not know the true nature of these missionaries? He is obviously a very
intelligent man, and I have no doubt that he knows, very clearly. It's his duty,
however, to maintain the "facade." What a shame the professor within him
refuses to be objective.
These innocent Armenians are reported to be softening up
positions to better prepare their Russian allies' conquest of Van
(From "The Armenian Aspirations and
Yet, we will give Ambassador Elekdag every advantage.
We will ignore Morgenthau's book, without just cause, and take testimony regarding
Morgenthau from Heath W. Lowry... (who) ...has written a booklet called The Story Behind
Ambassador Morgenthau's Story...
Lowry's booklet, unfortunately, just as Elekdag's letter, is marred by many errors.(53)
For example, in one place Lowry states that Schmavonian "accompanied [Morgenthau] in
all meetings with Turkish officials."(54) Then on the next page he writes that
Schmavonian "accompanied Morgenthau on almost every official visit he paid to members
of the Young Turk Government."(55) Finally, Lowry writes, quoting Morgenthau, that
"Talaat told me that he greatly preferred that I should always come alone when I had
any Armenian matters to discuss with him."(56)
While I believe that Lowry's booklet is tendentious
and flawed, a full critique of it cannot be made here.
Too bad I'm not on an airplane
flight at the moment, because there is no paper bag within reach, and I feel like I'm
about to throw up.
Shades of Ambassador's Elekdag's
heinous error of "Fey" for "Fay"; it's Dr. Papazian's mission to try
and point to a withering weed in the entire magnificent forest, in a desperate attempt to
discredit the messenger of the damaging message. Dr. Lowry inadvertently omitted the word
"almost" in the first example, but he corrected himself in the second example by
writing, "almost all." So now, are we going to throw out Dr. Lowry's entire fine
research and work, on the basis of this example... which Dr. Papazian classifies as
Everybody is allowed small, careless
errors here and there. Look at Dr. Papazian. Believe me, I did not take a magnifying glass
and scour through his paper to see where he had made mistakes... this one caught my eye
coincidentally: a few paragraphs above this part of his discussion, his paper says (as of
April, 2003... and talking, coincidentally, of Fay): "In any case, Fay's book is
irrelevant and has been superceded by more recent scholarship." The correct spelling
That's not such a big deal, nor was
Dr. Papazian's error in the "Armenian FAQ"
page where he erroneously wrote Admiral Bristol began his term in Turkey in 1920, instead
of 1919. (However, he made an unforgivable "mistake" when he claimed [in Part 16
of that page] 1.5 million Armenians were killed by the Turks when he had already claimed a
figure of three million; sloppy. Very sloppy.)
At any rate, Dr. Papazian doesn't have the complete luxury to pull the
wool over the eyes of his readers on THIS page.... readers can tune in on Dr. Lowry's work right here, and judge for
themselves. What a "tease" Dr. Papazian is by stating Dr. Lowry's work is
"flawed" and that he can't make a "full critique" here. What's
stopping him from making it elsewhere? [ADDENDUM: In a 2005 correspondence, Dr,
Papazian claimed he had made a critique.] Dr. Lowry went through the meticulous
trouble of examining Morgenthau's private letters and diaries... his research is
impeccable. Naturally, Dr. Papazian and his cronies can never hope to try and discredit Dr. Lowry enough, just as they have all
historians... unwilling to goose-step to the Armenians' tune... in their sights.
First, Lowry quotes a letter
written by Morgenthau to President Woodrow Wilson on November 26, 1917, in which
Morgenthau informs Wilson that he is considering writing a book about Germany and Turkey:
"For in Turkey we see the evil spirit of Germany at its worst--culminating at last in
the greatest crime of all ages, the horrible massacre of helpless Armenians and
Syrians."(57) This letter should be clear enough. Morgenthau sincerely believed that
the Germans were guilty of aggression and that they were a bad influence on the Turks.
There is certainly nothing untoward in this. Morgenthau sincerely believed both to be
Where does Dr. Lowry claim Morgenthau
was being "untoward," regarding the aggressive nature of the Germans? Dr. Lowry
is citing evidence on Morgenthau's motivation for embarking on his book: "...His sole
aim was fostering public support for the United States war effort by writing a work of
anti-German, anti Turkish propaganda which would 'win a victory for the war policy of the
government,' he not surprisingly received it." When you attempt to critique something, don't forget to stick to the
facts, Professor. ("The
facts"... hoo-boy. Must have forgotten whom I'm speaking to.)
While the diary
does not have the literary elegance of Ambassador Morgenthau's Story, its meaning is
unambiguous: Talât confesses through his own interpreter, not a Greek or Armenian, to
Morgenthau that he wants to kill all the Armenians in Anatolia and that three quarters of
them are already dead. Nothing could be clearer.
Armenians claim one million survived.
Subtract that from the 1.0 to 1.5 million
Armenians who lived in the Ottoman Empire. Now
conclude: was Talat Pasha lying when he estimated
Armenian losses at 300,000? Is there any chance
he could have told Morgenthau over a million
Armenians were dead? Wasn't Morgenthau
The incriminating passage from
Morgenthau's diary has Talat Pasha saying they had already "disposed" of
three-fourths of [the Armenians], and that "they would take care of the Armenians at
Zor and elsewhere but they did not want them in Anatolia." So, out of an original
Armenian population within the Ottoman Empire, before the war, of 1.3 to 1.5 million
(actually, neutral estimates varied from 1.0 to 1.5 million, with a median average of 1.3
million), "nothing could be clearer" than that "three quarters of them are
already dead." So Talat Pasha, who stated at his own Congress of the Union and
Progress Party that the Armenian losses were around 300,000, suddenly
"confesses" to Ambassador Morgenthau that from around 1 million to
one-and-an-eighth million Armenians were dead.
Gee, Dr. Papazian. We both know that
many Armenians REALLY didn't die. Particularly by August 8, 1915. I mean, look, it wasn't
even Ataturk's turn to massacre all the Armenians, in years to come, as your pal Dr.
Marashlian cited in one of his papers.
If it took over a couple of thousand
years for Armenians to have reached a worldwide population of three million before the
war, just about every single one of them tracing their roots back to Anatolia, how in the
world could Armenians have mushroomed up to seven million (an Armenian site claims ten
million) in just eighty-ninety years, if their population was so wiped out? If Talat Pasha
really believed that, he must have been out of his mind... certainly he would have been
out of his mind to confess this to Morgenthau, of all people, whom Talat knew had a direct
line to the propaganda mills.
Whichever word Talat Pasha's
translator used, is it possible Morgenthau's final understanding of the word
"dispose" could have meant getting rid of the Armenians not in the murderous
sense, but in the "cleaning out" (which also could mean "to kill") the
Armenians from the regions where they stirred up trouble?
If you had honestly gone on to report
what Dr. Lowry was getting at with the second part of your stating "nothing could be
clearer" (alluding to the line, "they would take care of the Armenians at Zor and elsewhere but they did
not want them in Anatolia," the meaning of which you conclude is that Talat
"wants to kill all the Armenians in Anatolia") you would not have ignored Dr.
Lowry's point ... when Morgenthau went on to report that a whole month after the
above-mentioned conversation with Talaat, he received a visit from...
"Zenop Bezjian, Vekil (representative
of the Armenian Protestants in the Ottoman Empire)... called. Schmavonian introduced
him; he was his schoolmate. He told me a great deal about conditions [in the interior). I
was surprised to hear him report that Armenians at Zor were fairly well satisfied; that
they have already settled down to business and are earning their livings; those were the
first ones that were sent away and seem to have gotten there without being
Dr. Lowry writes, "All comments in Ambassador Morgenthau's Story notwithstanding, as
late as September 1915, Morgenthau had not firmly concluded that the Armenians were the
subject of an attempted 'extermination'..."; he further asks, "
Why does Morgenthau not challenge Talaat on this statement (regarding Zor) because it is
not out of keeping with what he is hearing at that time from others..."
if Dr. Lowry interpreted Talat's saying "they would take care of the Armenians at
Zor" as meaning whether they would "whack" them, like the Sopranos, or
whether "take care" means to actually "take care." (To my ear, the
latter meaning is clearly being alluded to.) Based on the Armenian representative's words,
recorded by your God, Henry Morgenthau, the Armenians at Zor were being very well taken
The real question is, since you have
come face to face with Dr. Lowry's irrefutable findings of the true nature of Morgenthau
and his phony book, based on all the inconsistencies with Morgenthau's own diaries and
letters (a portion of the latter of which were written by his Armenian secretary, which
compromises their credibilty), why are you still urinating in your pants trying to find
something.... anything... to discredit Dr. Lowry's findings, and not acting like a real
professor, who would objectively consider factual proof in the interests of true
I realize the approval of your
community is foremost in your list of priorities, but it's not only Armenians who will
judge you. Turkish opinion wouldn't matter to you, I know... but what about the opinion of
everybody else? The real truth is going to come out, probably when you are no longer still
around... but doesn't it bother you how people will judge you then, on the basis of your
work, which is all you will have speaking for you?
The third wartime
German ambassador at the Ottoman court was Count von Wolff-Metternich...German Vice-Consul
Max Erwin von Scheubner-Richter...
Both of whom wrote incriminating
passages regarding the Turks' treatment of the Armenians (they both use the word
"annihilate" in their descriptions... whomever translated the original German
[probably Dr. Vahakn Dadrian] sure liked to use the word "annihilate," which is
a word that can only be used by someone with an agenda or one who is a sucker, since the
majority of the Armenians survived); yup, among all the "evidence" the Armenians
can muster to prove their life's blood Tall Tale, the Germans' testimony certainly does
seem the most incriminating. Just like the Germans were the allies of the Turks, so were
the Russians the allies of the Armenians....and they, too, would have had no reason to lie
when they reported on the disgusting
atrocities committed by the Armenians. The difference is, these Russians' reports were
from the actual field... they were genuine
eyewitnesses; the two German examples above are an ambassador and a consul, like
Morgenthau and George Horton, neither of whom ventured out to check things out for
themselves... and settled on listening to the biased reports of others.
Guess what... Dr. Papazian isn't the
only scholar hell-bent on presenting the Armenians' lopsided views. There are many others,
certainly not all of Armenian origin. I already tackled the German connection when I
rebutted Dr. Roger Smith regarding the
ambassador-count... and, on the same page, Mike
Joseph (as he brought up the Vice-Consul). On the Questions page, I also observed the German issue.
I wonder what the professor has to
say about the many Germans who bitterly accused Armenians of backing the Russians, as
evidenced, for example, in Kress von Kressenstein, Friedrich Freiherr: Mit den Turken zum
Suezcanal, Berlin 1938, p.132 ... and Germans who accused Armenians for bringing forth
their own relocation, by providing assistance to the enemy. (Pomianowsky, Joseph:
Der Zusammenbruch des Ottomanischen Reiches. Erinnerungen an die Turkei aus der Zeit des
Weltkrieges. Zurich 1928 p. 174.) Here's something I never came across before: according
to Pomianowsky, due to the epidemic diseases spread by the Armenians, around
1.000.000 Moslems, and a great number of soldiers, succumbed to these Armenian-spread
diseases and died. Hmmm. That latter charge sounds a bit wild, but no more wild than the
Germans Dr. Papazian loves to quote.
What can be said of scholars working on the
Armenian 'genocide,' who, in publication after publication, over the past decades
quote the outright lies and half truths which permeate Morgenthau's 'Story' without
ever questioning even the most blatant of the inconsistencies?
Dr. Heath Lowry
"The Story Behind Ambassador Morgenthau's
We should remember that James Ring
Adams argues that Elekdag must "make liars of men like Henry Morgenthau" in
order to prove his case...
Not so difficult, when the
lawyer-turned-ambassador was a shameless liar of the first order.
"It is to be hoped that the
future historian will not give too much heed to the drivel one finds in the books of
diplomatist-authors," wrote George A. Schreiner, in his "The Craft
Sinister: A Diplomatico-Political History of the Great War and its Causes, (G. Albert
Gayer, New York, 1920)"; Schreiner criticized Ambassador Morgenthau in a scathing letter, aware of the
Ambassador's fabrications in "Ambassador Morgenthau's Story." Dr. Heath
Lowry came across George Schreiner's violent reaction, where he wrote the ambassador his
comments should not be taken as "a declaration of war"... and since Mr.
Schreiner was on the field as a renowned American War & Political Correspondent, he
was much more in a position to know the facts than the stashed away, bigoted ambassador
with an agenda. Even though Dr. Papazian came across this source when he criticized Dr.
Lowry's "Story Behind Ambassador Morgenthau's Story," he chooses to overlook it.
Not that an objective evaluator would solely need Mr. Schreiner's testimony to conclude
Morgenthau was a man not of the highest character.
Holdwater is Getting Tired...
One could spend a lifetime
rebutting the likes of Dr. Papazian.
He next brings up Leslie
Davis... the Armenian "Big Gun" used to full advantage in at least two
Armenian T.V. programs presented by America's Public Broadcasting and Armenian
butt-licking station, PBS (The Great War
and Armenia — Survival of a
Nation)... and another U.S. Consul, Edward I. Nathan. I have yet to
"meet" a U.S. Consul, shaped by my terrifying first impression of U.S.
Consuls in the Ottoman Empire (in the person of insanely Turcophobic George Horton, who wrote "The
Blight of Asia"), who is not a religious and racist bigot prone to
swallowing wholesale the fabricated stories of missionaries and Armenians, many of
the latter whom they employed. The only "positive" Consul report I have
encountered thus far, shedding light on some semblance of objectivity they might
have carried, was from the aforementioned Consul Edward Nathan... whose words I
included on the very bottom of the Leslie
Interestingly, in the
footnote Dr. Papazian has provided for the damning words of Consul Nathan... (dug up
by a "Hairepetian"... there is a whole ARMY of them working day and night
to come up with something... ANYTHING...), the date was from August 7, 1915. ("The
incredible terror created by the Turkish authorities.") The
"nice" report from the very same Consul Nathan ("The government
organized this process in the most orderly fashion; and that the Government did not
allow any act of violence or disorder, provided sufficient number of tickets to the
immigrants and assisted those who were in need") is from just a couple
of weeks later. (Aug. 30, 1915; the above has been paraphrased, and is not
an exact quote. From Realities on the Armenian Immigration - 1915, TTK
[Turkish Historical Society] Publications, Ankara, 2001. Source: "EUM, File
2D/13 [see Document 664]") At that point, I presume the Turkish authorities
must have finished reading "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde."
|The Armenians have perhaps 40-50 full time professionals in
Washington D.C. doing nothing but working each and every day to undercut Turkey and
Azerbaijan and promote themselves for more foreign aid taxpayer funding. Turkish
Americans have -0- staff and office working for them in Washington DC. The Turks
really should do more to protect themselves. All they have to do is tell truth!
Judge Sam Weems
Finally, if Ambassador Elekdag will grant that
Ambassador Morgenthau could read, without translations by Greeks and Armenians...
Since Dr. Papazian makes an
issue of this point several times, I must tell him he is correct. Morgenthau did not
need his Armenian translators for reports written in English by his own U.S.
Consuls. (Even if these reports were not written in English, Morgenthau would still
have understood perfectly.... since he and the Consuls "spoke exactly the same
language," if you will; as they were men cut from the same cloth. It wouldn't
be until Admiral Mark Bristol's arrival that an American would have the integrity to
look at the situation in an even-handed manner.)
However, the real point is
this: both Armenians in Morgenthau's employ worked as translators. Hagop Andonian
(mostly secretary, sometime translator), whose contributions the ambassador wrote
were "indispensable," actually had a hand in writing Morgenthau's own
letters... in Morgenthau's name... which Morgenthau wrote "relieves me of all
responsibility for any error." (I wrote that line from memory, and just took
the trouble of checking it.... I didn't want Dr. Papazian to discredit me for saying
"all.") Later, when Andonian accompanied Morgenthau to America, he
was close enough to Morgenthau for the former ambassador to get him out of the
draft, and even accompanied Morgenthau to the movies (wonder if they ever caught
RAVISHED ARMENIA, starring the egomaniacal Morgenthau himself). The other Armenian,
Arshag Schmavonian, was perhaps even closer to Morgenthau's heart, based on the
loving descriptions Henry wrote in his letters (which one presumes the jealous
Andonian would not have had a hand in.)
Morgenthau relied on these two
men completely. They were his eyes and ears. What do you think would be the natural
result of that? For example, one of today's countless Turk-haters with web sites is
a Mr. Rudy Brueggemann. After going
through the standard "Turks are responsible for all ills on earth"
routine, he reveals an Armenian friend told him this and that. Don't you think when
you are in a foreign country... especially a notorious one like the Ottoman Empire
where Morgenthau, like all Americans, only heard bad things about... would lean
toward the claims of his friends, his Armenian friends, who could speak English and
whom he could freely communicate with... rather than the savage, alien Turks?
Indeed, Woodrow Wilson, with a plentitude of
information from all sources, was so moved by the Armenian plight that he advocated
an American mandate over Armenia. On May 24, 1920, the president sent a message to
the Senate seeking consent to take up that duty. In his official message, Wilson
wrote: "I ask this not only because [the mandate resolution] embodied my own
convictions and feeling with regard to Armenia and its people, but also, and more
particularly, because it seemed to me to be the voice of the American people,
expressing their genuine convictions and deep . . . sympathies. . . . The sympathy
with Armenia has proceeded from no single portion of our people, but has come with
extraordinary spontaneity and sincerity from the whole. . . . At their hearts, this
great and generous people [the Americans] have made the case of Armenia their
I don't know what THAT proves,
but President Wilson, a preacher's son, was one of the best friends Armenians ever
had. (Especially when he kept using the word "sympathy." The quickest way
to an Armenian's heart is to offer him sympathy.) Woodrow Wilson could be a naive
man, as his Allies would find time and again. Certainly, he believed in the
whirlwind of B.S. supplied by beloved missionaries, beloved Armenians, trusted U.S.
representatives... all on top of the expertly-engineered anti-Turkish &
anti-German British propaganda mill that America EXCLUSIVELY heard (Since the Brits
cut the Germans' cable to America), by Wellington House's American branch, run by a
Canadian. When you hear all bad and no good, over and over and over again, and
especially if you are a devout Christian whose pre-existing anti-Muslim beliefs keep
getting reinforced... who WOULDN'T be moved!
And how did the Armenians repay
the best friend they probably ever had? Why, by attacking him... of
what a tangled web we weave / When first we practise to deceive!" — Sir Walter Scott, in his 1808 poem Marmion
Elekdag's final argument is that the Armenians were
sympathetic to the Russians and had to be evacuated from the war zone in the east.
However, a "removal of the Armenian population" from the "war zone" in
the east, as Ambassador Elekdag claims, would have only included the provinces of Erzeroum
(Erzurum) and Van in Turkey, and perhaps the areas of Kars and Ardahan in the Russian
Dr. Papazian goes on to report how
just about how every single Armenian got "annihilated" (hey! That's a word his fellow Aryans allegedly loved to use, regarding the Armenians) through just
about every inch of the Ottoman Empire. However, Ambassador Elekdag isn't lying.... almost
all the Armenians who were affected were in the east-to central part of the nation. To
prove my point, I already referred to this map
(during my first rebuttal of the good professor, in the "Armenian FAQ" page) I dug up straight out of an Armenian web
site. Check it out, especially with the comparative maps (above, on the same page)
outlining where the Armenians resided.
Let's make one thing clear:
the Armenians' treachery was not only limited to the east. During this desperate time, the
exhausted, resource-less Ottomans were fighting with their forces widely spread out...
from the east, with mortal enemy Russia at the gates, to the west, fighting French and
British forces at Gallipoli, and as far south as Mesopotamia, among other fronts. It
wasn't just the Russians making promises to the Armenians... it was the British, as well. In return, the
Armenians did what they could to hamper Ottoman
efforts at Gallipoli. It's a wonder that the entire Armenian community was not
relocated. And as far as all the Armenians getting "annihilated".... this is why
a relocation sufferer from Peter Balakian's family faces the incredible odds of meeting a fellow
sufferer from presumably the very same march... a few years later, at (of ALL places)
Saks Department Store in New York City! Some annihilation, all right; last time I checked,
"annihilate" meant... well, here, I just looked it up: "To destroy
completely; wipe out; reduce to nonexistence." Dr. Papazian, REALLY! The German
ambassador and Vice-Consul some Armenian translator (perhaps Herr Dadrian?) likely put
this word in their mouths may be excused, but how COULD you use the word
"annihilate," in all.... (choke!)... good conscience? Now. I have been
taking every single one of the professor's points without ducking anything... however,
this page has consumed enough of my life, and we're getting near the end of his essay,
I'll take one more
point, the only one out of sequence... which the professor makes to prove how legitimate
the decisions were at the kangaroo courts established by the post World War I, non-elected
Ottoman government totally at the mercy of the Allied forces. These ersatz courts barely
presented any evidence, and their purpose was mainly political retribution. Almost every
defendant was found guilty, sentenced for things as mundane as leaving a post without
permission (that is, many cases had nothing to do with Armenian affairs), and perhaps even
for leaving out the word, "almost" next to "all" ... and a good few
were were executed. About the only value of these courts was that at least the Ottomans
attempted some form of justice for crimes against Armenians, while neither Armenia (the
country) nor Armenian guerillas ever tried their own criminals for horrible acts against
Turks that are documented even by Armenians.
The prelude to the
professor's bringing this topic up is:
Finally, many people have asked: If there was a genocide, why was there
not a war crimes trial following the war as there was following World War II at Nuremberg?
Indeed, there was, and Elekdag makes reference to it.
The REAL "Nuremberg" is, of course, not
the fake courts by the puppet post war Turks — if we're looking for a true parallel,
don't forget the Germans did not try the Germans at Nuremberg; it was the Allies who tried
the Germans at Nuremberg — but the planned trial by the Allies (mainly the British)....
in the form of the Malta Tribunal. This is
the one where 144 Ottoman officials were imprisoned in the island of Malta for nearly
two-and-a-half-years, while the British searched under every rock... with all the Ottoman
documents fully available to them (before the nasty Turks got the chance to
"purge" anything), under occupation as Istanbul was... with a team of mostly
Armenians doing the research.... and going as far as the shores of America in a desperate
search to find proof. REAL proof, as all the stupid Bryce Reports (produced by the British
themselves; even the producers of that garbage did not give value to them),
Morgenthau book, missionary lies, Aram Andonian forgeries of telegrams, newspaper
articles... ALL were rejected, and every single Turk was allowed to go free, not only
innocent of genocide, but of ANY war crime. THIS IS THE END-ALL ARGUMENT AGAINST THE
MADE-UP GENOCIDE THAT NO ARMENIAN (that I've encountered) DARES TALK ABOUT... INCLUDING
Some partisans may attempt to dismiss the Turkish war crimes trials as biased because they
were held while the British occupied Constantinople. In fact, this allegation of the
influence of a British occupation is not entirely true since the trials began before the
British sent troops into the city.
These trials were conducted
by an Ottoman government scared out of its wits... to hold on to whatever little power
that remained. Bayonets did not need to be fixed at the courtroom by British troops in
order for these trials to be conducted.... the psychological mindset was already well in
place. The spineless Turks in charge already made up their minds to be the puppets of the
Allies, the reason why the Sevres document
they went on to sign spelled the death sentence of the Turkish nation, and we all know
practically no Turk followed this pseudo-government that did not represent them,
VOLUNTEER UNITS SERVED IN THE RUSSIAN ARMY, AND THERE WAS AGITATION FOR A HOMELAND
IN AND AROUND THE ANATOLIAN CITY OF VAN..."
WILLIAM L. CLEVELAND, A
HISTORY OF THE MODERN MIDDLE EAST, 1994, PP.142
"...ARMENIAN VOLUNTEERS CERTAINLY STARTED KILLING MOSLEM
CIVILIANS AS SOON AS RUSSIAN TROOPS CROSSED THE OTTOMAN FRONTIER..."
DAVID NICOLLE, PH.D, THE
OTTOMAN ARMY 1914-18, 1996, PP. 38
"... MOREOVER, THROUGHOUT EASTERN ANATOLIA THE TURKS
WERE THREATENED BY THE INSURRECTION OF THEIR EMBITTERED ARMENIAN SUBJECTS, WHO
DISRUPTED COMMUNICATIONS AND FORMED VOLUNTEER GROUPS TO HELP THE RUSSIANS. OTHERS
JOINED THE RUSSIAN ARMENIAN FORCES...",
PETER MANSFIELD, A HISTORY
OF THE MIDDLE EAST, 1991, PP. 150
"...A FEW THOUSAND ARMENIANS JOINED THE RUSSIAN ARMY;
THERE WERE ARMENIAN DESERTIONS FROM THE OTTOMAN ARMY AND GUERILLA ACTIVITY BEHIND THE
ERIK J. ZURCHER, TURKEY, A
MODERN HISTORY, 1993, PP. 120
Furthermore, the fable
that "Tsarist Russia incited Armenians to revolt by promising them the
establishment of an independent Armenia after the collapse of the Ottoman
Empire"(74) is totally without evidence. While it is true that Tsar Nicholas II
issued pronouncements calling on the Armenians of Turkey to revolt, no such
revolt ever took place! In any case, no Armenian would take seriously such a
"No such revolt ever took place!"
"No such revolt ever took place!"
"No such revolt ever took place!"
"No such revolt ever took place !"
"No such revolt ever took place!"
"No such revolt ever took place !"
"No such revolt ever took place !"
n. A falsehood; lie