Tall Armenian Tale


The Other Side of the Falsified Genocide


  Theodore Roosevelt and the Armenians  
First Page


Major Players
Links & Misc.


Mahmut Ozan
Edward Tashji
Sam Weems


Theodore Roosevelt on Mt. Rushmore

Theodore Roosevelt on Mt. Rushmore, on a par
with Abraham Lincoln

The name "Theodore Roosevelt" works like magic when the case for Armenian "genocide" is attempted to be made. He is an American of somewhat mythic proportions, a big stick carrying Rough Rider, a man of action, and a dual-administration serving President of the United States (1901-1909). He failed when he tried to get elected again, but apparently some felt he was a great enough president to have been mounted on Rushmore.

President Roosevelt accomplished good, certainly; he was an environmentalist, for example. He also helped his nation better join the ranks of the world powers, usually at the expense of others. It has been speculated that he had a hand in drumming up false charges against the Spanish ("Remember the Maine!"), just so he could sock it to the ailing empire, in order to advance American imperialist aims.

"Protestant Diplomacy and the Near East: Missionary influence on American policy, 1810-1927" quotes Roosevelt as having said, "Spain and Turkey are the two powers I would rather smash than any in the world." Roosevelt had a chance to smash Spain, yet never had the opportunity to do so with the Turks. Not with his big stick, anyway; he has done his best to run the Turks into the ground by speaking loudly, the poisonous effects of which still reverberate today.

"...The Armenian massacre was the greatest crime of the war..." is a favorite Roosevelt quote of genocide advocates. (One example.) Tie this statement in with the grand figure of Theodore Roosevelt, and you get instant genocide credibility within the minds of the unwary.

What kind of a man was Theodore Roosevelt? He was certainly a product of his times, where frank talk on racial matters were openly advocated. That is why we must not rush to judgment, applying 21st century "politically correct" standards. Isolated quotes of an incriminating nature could be found from just about anyone. This is one of the ways in which pro-Armenians attempt to discredit U.S. High Commissioner Bristol, while ignoring the far deeper racism of Ambassador Morgenthau. Even Abraham Lincoln had been known to use the word, "nigger."

However, when judging the 19th or early 20th century individual, there is a difference between usage of an occasionally impolitic description and the advocacy of outright racism. Let's take a look at the inner forces that drove Theodore Roosevelt.

We open with an article examining Roosevelt's commitment to the Armenian people and cause.


1) Theodore Roosevelt and Armenia

2) Roosevelt Letter Highlighted by ANI

3) Roosevelt's 1900 Book: "The Strenuoous Life"

4) The Kinds of Reports that Swayed Roosevelt

5) "The Expansion of the White Races"


Theodore Roosevelt and Armenia

From the March 1919 issue of The New Armenia


THE death of Colonel Theodore Roosevelt has deprived the Armenian nation of one of its most illustrious and sincere friends. As his book, The Strenuous Life, proves, Colonel Roosevelt long ago had interested himself in the Armenians. On September 28, 1904, he received most cordially, at the White House, an Armenian delegation, which, representing the Armenian Catholicos, had come to this country to enlist the sympathy and assistance of the United States in relieving the Armenians from Turkish persecution. During this reception, Mr. James Bronson Reynolds, in his introductory speech for the Armenian delegation, said: “Since 1895 more men, women and children have been massacred in Armenia by the Turkish soldiers and their auxiliaries than were killed on both sides in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870." *

Then, President Roosevelt, amiably interrupting him, rejoined: “You are quoting from my own book, The Strenuous Life. It was I who first made that statement.”

In his message to Congress in 1904, President Roosevelt declared that it was inevitable that the United States "should desire eagerly to give expression to its horror on an occasion like that of the massacre of the Jews in Kishinef, or when it witnesses such systematic and long extended cruelty and oppression as the cruelty and oppression of which the Armenians have been victims, and which has won for them the indignant pity of the civilized world."
On another occasion he declared: "Over and above all considerations of trade and polities we will continue to urge the claims of outraged humanity in the stricken land of Armenia."

Mekrtich I. Khrimian

Patriarch Khrimian

 In 1905, President Roosevelt received from His Holiness Mekrtich I. Khrimian, the late Catholicos of All the Armenians, a letter of congratulation upon his election. The communication, written in the ceremonial form used by Armenian rulers of the fifth century, read:
Mekrtich, Servant of Jesus Christ, and, by the inscrutable will of God, Chief Bishop and Catholicos of All the Armenians, Supreme Patriarch of the Mother See of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Armenia, to His Excellency, Theodore Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, greeting and patriarchal benediction.

Your Excellency: God, Who in His providence, bestows grace and all good gifts abundantly upon the worthy, has verily given Your Excellency a large measure of His blessing, and has raised you to the high office for which you have proved yourself so worthy in the past.

I consider it a great privilege and pleasure to extend to Your Excellency the most sincere congratulations of myself and of the Church and the people I represent, on the happy occasion of your receiving, as the most worthy person to be their Chief Magistrate, the absolute confidence and approval of your great and enlightened people.

It is a source of great satisfaction to me when I consider the comparatively happy lot of those of my people who, having escaped the unbearable yoke of Turkish tyranny and oppression, have taken refuge in your glorious country, where while earning an honest livelihood, they are being, at the same time, elevated mentally and morally, sharing with all other citizens the full benefits of the freedom and civilization of the United States. Would to God that the remnant of my people could enjoy in their own country the same peace and quiet and the benefits of righteous laws, with due protection of life, honor and property.

I pray Your Excellency to accept my profound respects and heartfelt thanks for the very kind reception accorded to my delegates, the two Archbishops, who were commissioned to plead the cause of the suffering Armenian people in Turkey. I cherish the hope that the powerful voice of Your Excellency’s Government will eventually aid in bringing peace and justice to the people of unfortunate Armenia....

Fridtjof Nansen

Fridtjof Nansen

Because of the strong sense of justice and righteousness President Roosevelt was known to possess, many appeals were made to him in behalf of Armenia. On January 18, 1906, Mr. James Bronson Reynolds presented to him a petition in which prominent European statesmen, educators, publicists and citizens, as Björnstjerne Björnson and Fridtjof Nansen, of Norway; General Booth, of the Salvation Army; Professor Wündt, of Leipzig; M. Berthelot, Professor Ernest Lavissc, Jules Claretic, Leon Bourgeois, Ludovic Halévy, Anatole Leroy-Beaulieu, and Louis Blanc, of France; and thirty-one senators and twenty-five deputies of France, two senators and eleven deputies of Italy, two senators and forty-seven deputies of Belgium, one deputy of Sweden, and eight deputies of Denmark, fourteen English bishops, fifty-one professors of the universities of Great Britain and the Continent, besides many eminent citizens of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Germany, Austria, Italy, Scotland, and Ireland, had joined to save from total annihilation “the Armenian people whose origin is the same as ours, and who have played an important part in the development of civilization since ancient times.”

At the same time, through the joint efforts of Armenia and The Friends of Armenia, many distinguished clergymen, educators, philanthropists, governors and mayors in all parts of the United States, adopted or endorsed resolutions supporting the cause of Armenia. In response to all these appeals, the Honorable Elihu Root, then Secretary of State, wrote:

The sympathy of the American people with the oppressed of every country has been repeatedly expressed by various branches of this Government * *, and in the case of the unfortunate Armenians, has been eloquently voiced by the American nation itself. There is no room for doubt in any quarter as to the desire of the President that these Armenians should possess the security of life and property which it has been the concerted aim of the European powers to assure to them. The sufferings of the Armenian subjects of Turkey cry aloud for remedy and redress. They shock the humanitarian sense of all mankind. . . . No right-minded man can witness such occurrences without craving the power to prevent them. I most sincerely wish that the United States had the power.

The non possumus attitude of the Roosevelt administration toward Armenia was diplomatically justified as the United States was not one of the signatory Powers which had guaranteed, in Artide LXI of the Treaty of Berlin, “amelioration and reforms” for the Armenian provinces then under the yoke of Turkey. Colonel Roosevelt was perhaps explaining his former official position as well as that of the United States when he said, in a letter dated July 10, 1918:

We had neither the power nor the right ourselves to begin a world war by our going to war with Turkey in the past, but .now the world war has come, and we are in it, now we can fight effectively beside our Allies. We have the only chance that has ever been offered to us to interfere by force of arms in entirely disinterested fashion for the oppressed nationalities that are ground under the Turkish rule. It is a dreadful thing that we should fail to take advantage of this opportunity, and it will be a lasting disgrace to our nation if we persist in the failure.

Owing to innumerable stories of the Armenian persecutions, Colonel Roosevelt was led to fear that the new generation of the Armenians had lost its martial prowess. During an interview granted by him to Armenian students in 1912, he said: "I want Armenians to be able to bear arms just as they did in the days of King Tigranes, so that in the next generation no one can say that the Christian population of Turkey cannot fight."

The devotion, gallantry and valor displayed by the Armenians during the war, their heroic sacrifices for the triumph of the Allies, were a cause of great satisfaction to Colonel Roosevelt; and, whenever an opportunity presented itself, he did not fail to plead for the independence of Armenia.

"I am doing everything I can, and shall continue to do everything I can for the Armenians," he wrote to a correspondent a few days before his lamented death; and it is reported that one of his last acts was the Signing of the petition which was circulated by The New Armenia to urge prompt action on Senator Lodge’s Resolution in favor of a United and Independent Armenia.

W hen the grateful citizens of the new Armenian republic come to honor the memory of their great friends, Theodore Roosevelt will be remembered among the first of those who nobly and effectively championed Armenia in her heroic struggle for independence!


* It would take research to pin down how many died in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 (this site claims a few thousand shy of 200,000), but here is an example of what happens when one listens to mindless propaganda instead of genuine history. Passionate pro-Armenians would have it upwards of 300,000 were "massacred" in the late 19th century, circa 1895-96. The fact is, the figure was closer to 20,000. (Around a tenth of the casualties of the Franco-Prussian War, if the above figure is correct.) While these fatalities occurred as a result of Armenian rebellion seeking European intervention, some 5,000 Muslims were killed at the hands of murderous Armenians, in order to get the Muslims incited... victims who are never referred to.

* * The sympathy of the American people certainly does not rest "with the oppressed of every country," but only with the victims deemed worthy enough; especially if they are Christian and white. See above paragraph for one example.

Roosevelt letter highlighted by ANI

The Armenian National Institute (ANI) proudly features the following in its "Genocide Research > Statements on Record Relating to the Armenian" section. It appears the following was a letter written by Roosevelt, featuring the "Roosevelt Quote" that so many Armenian advocates have taken to heart, and one that ANI has highlighted at the top of the page.


"...the Armenian massacre was the greatest crime of the war..."


Oyster Bay, May 11, 1918

To Cleveland Hoadley Dodge:

...So far from "being of assistance to the Allied cause by keeping on nominal terms of friendliness with Bulgaria and Turkey," I am convinced we are of the very greatest damage to the Allied cause by so doing. Moreover, I feel that we are guilty of a peculiarly odious form of hypocrisy when we profess friendship for Armenia and the downtrodden races of Turkey, but don't go to war with Turkey. To allow the Turks to massacre the Armenians and then solicit permission to help the survivors, and then to allege the fact that we are helping the survivors as a reason why we should not follow the only policy that will permanently put a stop to such massacres is both foolish and odious.

Theodore Roosevelt in 1917

Bully! Theodore Roosevelt in 1917, one year before
the writing of this letter. He was on his way to
his home in Long Island, New York, making a stop at
the Richmond Hill train station.

 I have a most interesting letter on the subject from Einstein, formerly with ou[r] Embassy in Turkey. I will send it to you by George Perkins. Some suffering would be caused if we went to war with Turkey, just as some suffering was caused when we went to war with Germany. But the Americans now would suffer only as the English and French suffered three years ago, when their nations were doing their duty, and ours was shirking its duty. We have no business to expect the allies to do the fighting which alone will accomplish anything permanent while we play the utterly ignoble part of being neutral and hoping that somehow or other we can thereby both save our own skins and also accomplish something. The arguments advanced against our going to war with Turkey are on a par with those formerly advanced against our going to war with Germany and then with Austria; only they are not quite as good. The Armenian horror is an accomplished fact. Its occurrence was largely due to the policy of pacifism this nation has followed for the last four years. The presence of our missionaries, and our failure to go to war, did not prevent the Turks from massacring between half a million and a million Armenians, Syrians, Greeks and Jews — the overwhelmingly majority being Armenians. Our declaration of war now will certainly not do one one-hundredth part of the damage already done by our failure to go to war in the past; and it will enable us to render service of permanent value for the future, and incidentally to take another step in regaining our self-respect.

We should go to war because not to do so is really to show bad faith towards our allies, and to help Germany, because the Armenian massacre was the greatest crime of the war, and failure to act against Turkey is to condone it; because the failure to deal radically with the Turkish horror means that all talk of guaranteeing the future peace of the world is mischievous nonsense; and because when we now refuse to war with Turkey we show that our announcement that we meant "to make the world safe for democracy" was insincere claptrap.


I hope this unrelenting fury against the Turks was not one of the reasons that caused Roosevelt to die the following year, at a relatively early age. (61.)

Not very sporting of Roosevelt to propose war with a nation that had little left to hold onto by mid-1918. But note his only reason for wanting to expend the lives of young American soldiers was his passion toward the Armenians. He even wrote, "But the Americans now would suffer only as the English and French suffered three years ago, when their nations were doing their duty, and ours was shirking its duty." The reason why the English and the French went to war had nothing to do with their "duty" of protecting Armenians. History has shown how highly the English and French regarded the Armenians, with post war Allied treatment of the Armenians.

While Roosevelt was not successful in getting the United States to war against the object of his hate, he indirectly helped many Turks get killed. Along with the missionary James Barton, the retired president was instrumental in spearheading the American financial campaign helping to organize and train the French Armenian Legion (John D. Rockefeller led the donors with a gift of $25,000). Along with similar subscription campaigns in Great Britain meant nominally to feed "starving Armenians," these funds were largely used to mount terrorist attacks against Turks once the Allies occupied the defeated nation. (Source: "The Armenian Legion and Its Destruction of the Armenian Community in Cilicia," Prof. Stanford Shaw, from the book, "The Armenians in the Late Ottoman Period.")

Theodore Roosevelt was really in fantasyland when he included "Jews" as among the massacred. With the wily propagandist Vahan Cardashian whispering in his ear, the ex-president surely has no conception that the Greeks and Syrians who lost their lives did so as a consequence of rebelling against their nation, as did the Armenians; if there were an internal rebellion by a minority within the United States, attempting to form their own plot of land while Roosevelt was president, you can be sure he would have applied his big stick, whether speaking softly or not. Only when the Ottoman Empire or modern Turkey exercises this right does it become a "massacre" or "genocide."

(It is interesting that even Teddy Roosevelt settled on a sum total of "half a million and a million Armenians, Syrians, Greeks and Jews.")

Theodore Roosevelt was obviously deeply hooked on the Armenian propaganda that influenced him. How could such an intelligent man — an ex-president better equipped than the ordinary person to have known betternot have risen above such a one-sided presentation of a story?

The answer has nothing to do with intelligence, or reason. Roosevelt was driven by emotional forces that claimed the lot of "white, Christian" Americans of the period.

How ironic for Roosevelt to have written: I feel that we are guilty of a peculiarly odious form of hypocrisy when we profess friendship for Armenia ... but don't go to war with Turkey. A better display of Roosevelt's personal hypocrisy was his handling of the Philippine War (which he prematurely declared to be "over" in 1902, as President George W. Bush would pronounce years later with  America's war in Iraq; a good chunk of the deaths occurred after these wars were "over.") Hundreds of thousands (some have estimated as half a million to a million; sounds familiar?) of Filipino civilians were the victims of American atrocities, in a genocidal chapter of American history. The Rough Rider evidently shed no tears for these victims, not while he was president, and certainly not in 1918 while crying for the Armenians. The reason: some humans, in his mind, were less equal than others. "Barbarians" deserve no tears, is the way Roosevelt's mind apparently worked. Barbarians only deserved to be taken over by civilized white Christians. (And once taken over, then and only then did they... maybe... deserve some sympathy. For example, Roosevelt did show kindness to the American Indians while he was the President.)


Roosevelt's 1900 book: "The Strenuous Life"

"The Strenuous Life" is the book Roosevelt had written in 1900; it is available online, at bartleby.com.

The following analysis is taken from "EXPANSION AND PEACE


 Captain Mahan, than whom there is not in the country a man whom we can more appropriately designate by the fine and high phrase, "a Christian gentleman" ...

We begin to get a clue as to what sort of people are to be designated "fine and high."

The great blot upon European international morality in the closing decade of this century has been not a war, but the infamous peace kept by the joint action of the great powers, while Turkey inflicted the last horrors of butchery, torture, and outrage upon the men, women, and children of despairing Armenia. War was avoided; peace was kept; but what a peace! Infinitely greater human misery was inflicted during this peace than in the late wars of Germany with France, of Russia with Turkey; and this misery fell, not on armed men, but upon defenseless women and children, upon the gray-beard and the stripling no less than upon the head of the family; and it came, not in the mere form of death or imprisonment, but of tortures upon men, and, above all, upon women, too horrible to relate—tortures of which it is too terrible even to think. Moreover, no good resulted from the bloodshed and misery. Often this is the case in a war, but often it is not the case. The result of the last Turko-Russian war was an immense and permanent increase of happiness for Bulgaria, Servia, Bosnia, and Herzegovina. These provinces became independent or passed under the dominion of Austria, and the advantage that accrued to them because of this expansion of the domain of civilization at the expense of barbarism has been simply incalculable. This expansion produced peace, and put a stop to the ceaseless, grinding, bloody tyranny that had desolated the Balkans for so many centuries.

Note only the "happiness" of "Christian" lands matter. Who cares about how they obtained such "happiness," by inflicting wide-scale death and exile on the Muslims who were living side-by-side with them. (Some 260,000 were killed in Bulgaria alone, with twice that number having been exiled.) Even by 1900, Roosevelt had succumbed whole-heartedly to Armenian propaganda. Had he not the wisdom to scratch underneath the surface of the ubiquitous one-sided stories? Even if he had the wisdom, he did not have the desire... which ultimately indicates how  wise a person really is.

He goes on to criticize Tolstoy's "fantastic advocacy of peace":

If Tolstoi's countrymen had acted according to his moral theories they would now be extinct, and savages would have taken their place.

If Roosevelt had the wisdom and the ability to analyze objectively, he would have discovered the Ottoman Empire had followed a policy similarly advocating peace; the traditions, culture, and religion of peoples who had been conquered were kept intact for centuries... in a "fantastic" display of humanism, especially rare for multi-cultural empires of the period. As Roosevelt correctly deduced, the adherence to such morality and toleration came very close to resulting in the extinction of the Turks themselves, as Roosevelt's brand of "civilized" high and fine Christian folk attained the position of dictating post war terms. But to Roosevelt's mind, the suffering of Turks are to be deemed irrelevant:

If Russia had acted upon Tolstoi's philosophy, all its people would long ago have disappeared from the face of the earth, and the country would now be occupied by wandering tribes of Tartar barbarians. The Armenian massacres are simply illustrations on a small scale of what would take place on the very largest scale if Tolstoi's principles became universal among civilized people.

The savages are the Turks. They are not equal human beings. Is this a "fine and high" CHRISTIAN way to think?

President Theodore Roosevelt

President Theodore Roosevelt 

Again, peace may come only through war. There are men in our country who seemingly forget that at the outbreak of the Civil War the great cry raised by the opponents of the war was the cry for peace. One of the most amusing and most biting satires written by the friends of union and liberty during the Civil War was called the "New Gospel of Peace," in derision of this attitude. The men in our own country who, in the name of peace, have been encouraging Aguinaldo and his people to shoot down our soldiers in the Philippines might profit not a little if they would look back to the days of the bloody draft riots, which were deliberately incited in the name of peace and free speech, when the mob killed men and women in the streets and burned orphan children in the asylums as a protest against the war. Four years of bloody struggle with an armed foe, who was helped at every turn by the self-styled advocates of peace, were needed in order to restore the Union; but the result has been that the peace of this continent has been effectually assured. Had the short-sighted advocates of peace for the moment had their way, and secession become an actual fact, nothing could have prevented a repetition in North America of the devastating anarchic warfare that obtained for three quarters of a century in South America after the yoke of Spain was thrown off.

Some very interesting observations and beliefs are revealed by Roosevelt. In a way, he's not without a point when he declares the reality that peaceniks are no match for hostile, dogmatic aggressors who only have violence in mind. This is one of the reasons why the Armenian "Genocide" has become the accepted wisdom throughout the world. The genocide advocates are loud, immoral, aggressive, and often fanatical. They have been largely met (in the rare cases they have been met; mostly the counterforce has been indifference) with civility and reason, weapons that have proven hugely ineffective.

Note how he is defending American actions in the Philippines. (Why doesn't he mention what America was doing there in the first place, inflicting such death and destruction in a land where the USA did not belong? But to men like Roosevelt, it was America's "moral obligation" to tame the savages.)

And here we encounter another example of Roosevelt's "odious hypocrisy." Without going into reasons for the American Civil War (primarily economic, as the case with most wars; basically, the North wanted to control the rich lands of the South. The main reason was certainly not to "free the slaves"), he upholds a country's right to repress those who demand "secession." This was exactly what happened with the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire (only the Armenians, unlike the American Confederacy, carried on a bloodthirsty policy of systematic extermination).

Note also his distaste for the "yoke" of Spain. Spanish influence was replaced by the dominance of another power, this time from the Americas.  He elaborates further:

...[W]e had just emerged victorious from our most righteous war with Spain. Scant attention is paid to the weakling or the coward who babbles of peace; but due heed is given to the strong man with sword girt on thigh who preaches peace, not from ignoble motives, not from fear or distrust of his own powers, but from a deep sense of moral obligation.

Yet one man's "moral obligation" could be another's disaster. Who determines the better morality? Those who carry the stronger sword.

The growth of peacefulness between nations, however, has been confined strictly to those that are civilized. It can only come when both parties to a possible quarrel feel the same spirit. With a barbarous nation peace is the exceptional condition. On the border between civilization and barbarism war is generally normal because it must be under the conditions of barbarism. Whether the barbarian be the Red Indian on the frontier of the United States, the Afghan on the border of British India, or the Turkoman who confronts the Siberian Cossack, the result is the same. In the long run civilized man finds he can keep the peace only by subduing his barbarian neighbor; for the barbarian will yield only to force, save in instances so exceptional that they may be disregarded. Back of the force must come fair dealing, if the peace is to be permanent. But without force fair dealing usually amounts to nothing. In our history we have had more trouble from the Indian tribes whom we pampered and petted than from those we wronged; and this has been true in Siberia, Hindustan, and Africa. .

Perhaps those Indian, Afghan and Turkoman barbarians were not stirring trouble for barbarity's sake, but for self-preservation against much stronger forces threatening their right to exist. Who is the real barbarian?

History has been "revised" in the United States to the extent that the "Red Indian" is no longer regarded as the savage villain. That is because the Red Indian has been subdued, and the victor finally could afford to offer "fair dealing." In the case of the Turks, the Western world still prefers to view these savages who are still peskily around as the ogres from The Lord of the Rings.

If the Ottoman Empire had followed Roosevelt's doctrine of wronging instead of pampering and petting, the face of Europe might have been different today.

Take the case of France and Algiers. During the early decades of the present century piracy of the most dreadful description was rife on the Mediterranean, and thousands of civilized men were yearly dragged into slavery by the Moorish pirates. A degrading peace was purchased by the civilized powers by the payment of tribute. Our own country was one among the tributary nations which thus paid blood-money to the Moslem bandits of the sea. We fought occasional battles with them; and so, on a larger scale, did the English. But peace did not follow, because the country was not occupied. Our last payment was made in 1830, and the reason it was the last was because in that year the French conquest of Algiers began. Foolish sentimentalists, like those who wrote little poems in favor of the Mahdists against the English, and who now write little essays in favor of Aguinaldo against the Americans, celebrated the Algerian freebooters as heroes who were striving for liberty against the invading French. But the French continued to do their work; France expanded over Algiers, and the result was that piracy on the Mediterranean came to an end, and Algiers has thriven as never before in its history.

Indeed, France's conquest of Algeria made the seas safer for American ships. In Roosevelt's criteria, only his own interests count. Certainly the advanced civilization of France brought certain advantages to a conquered Algeria, but only to the extent where France benefited. Algerian benefits were strictly a byproduct, so "Algiers has thriven as never before" is very misleading. The purpose of conquest was enrichment for the French, a goal that one such as Roosevelt, who only thinks of self-interest, can appreciate. No mention is made of the hundreds of thousands of Algerians who died as a result of French occupation, which some have classified as another unrecognized genocide. Why has it been unrecognized? Because the victims have been designated as half-human by the "Victors."

It's amusing how Roosevelt is incensed over sympathy expressed toward rebel Filipino forces. If you don't like it... get out of where you never belonged in the first place, and stop with the "moral obligation to civilize" taradiddle.

On an even larger scale the same thing is true of England and the Sudan. The expansion of England throughout the Nile valley has been an incalculable gain for civilization. Any one who reads the writings of the Austrian priests and laymen who were prisoners in the Sudan under the Mahdi will realize that when England crushed him and conquered the Sudan she conferred a priceless boon upon humanity and made the civilized world her debtor. Again, the same thing is true of the Russian advance in Asia. As in the Sudan the English conquest is followed by peace, and the endless massacres of the Mahdi are stopped forever, so the Russian conquest of the khanates of central Asia meant the cessation of the barbarous warfare under which Asian civilization had steadily withered away since the days of Jenghiz Khan, and the substitution in its place of the reign of peace and order. All civilization has been the gainer by the Russian advance, as it was the gainer by the advance of France in North Africa; as it has been the gainer by the advance of England in both Asia and Africa, both Canada and Australia.

I think we're getting an excellent idea of where Theodore Roosevelt is coming from, by now. Yeah, those Russians were civilized, all right. It was so nice of the Russians to go in maintain peace and order for the benefit of the half-human savages. Too bad the world did not allow the Russians to keep on conquering in the years ahead. Maybe America should have benefited from this wonderfully civilized Russian treatment, during the Cold War days.

While we had a frontier the chief feature of frontier life was the endless war between the settlers and the red men. Sometimes the immediate occasion for the war was to be found in the conduct of the whites and sometimes in that of the reds, but the ultimate cause was simply that we were in contact with a country held by savages or half-savages.

When an invader comes into your land and threatens your way of life or existence, it is the right of the land-owner to defend himself.

 Substitute "Turk" for the "red men." For the good of humanity, these savages must be subdued.

The same will be true of the Philippines. If the men who have counseled national degradation, national dishonor, by urging us to leave the Philippines and put the Aguinaldan oligarchy in control of those islands, could have their way, we should merely turn them over to rapine and bloodshed until some stronger, manlier power stepped in to do the task we had shown ourselves fearful of performing. But, as it is, this country will keep the islands and will establish therein a stable and orderly government, so that one more fair spot of the world's surface shall have been snatched from the forces of darkness. Fundamentally the cause of expansion is the cause of peace.

The Philippine people can obviously not be entrusted to rule their own lands which they had maintained for centuries (before the Spaniards moved in for a two-century stay). They are only capable of "rapine and bloodshed." I am not an expert on Philippine history, but you can bet the Philippines had the worst taste of rapine and bloodshed once the manly Western powers came in to try and rescue these savages from the forces of darkness.

He ends the chapter with:

It is only the warlike power of a civilized people that can give peace to the world. The Arab wrecked the civilization of the Mediterranean coasts, the Turk wrecked the civilization of southeastern Europe, and the Tatar desolated from China to Russia and to Persia, setting back the progress of the world for centuries, solely because the civilized nations opposed to them had lost the great fighting qualities, and, in becoming over peaceful, had lost the power of keeping peace with a strong hand. Their passing away marked the beginning of a period of chaotic barbarian warfare. Those whose memories are not so short as to have forgotten the defeat of the Greeks by the Turks, of the Italians by the Abyssinians, and the feeble campaigns waged by Spain against feeble Morocco, must realize that at the present moment the Mediterranean coasts would be overrun either by the Turks or by the Sudan Mahdists if these warlike barbarians had only to fear those southern European powers which have lost the fighting edge. Such a barbarian conquest would mean endless war; and the fact that nowadays the reverse takes place, and that the barbarians recede or are conquered, with the attendant fact that peace follows their retrogression or conquest, is due solely to the power of the mighty civilized races which have not lost the fighting instinct, and which by their expansion are gradually bringing peace into the red wastes where the barbarian peoples of the world hold sway.

Here's what Nick had to say about a later Greek adventure: "When George Horton, Christian missionary in Smyrna and a Turcophobe of no small distinction (author of “The Blight of Asia”), asked a Greek about reports of wholesale massacres carried out by Greeks against Turks in Western Anatolia during 1921-22, the answer that he got was that Greek actions were modeled after the punitive expeditions carried out by U.S. forces in the Philippines between 1899-1905."

American atroctities in the Philippines: "Kill Every One Over Ten."

It is the Muslims, and in particular the Turks/ and the Turkic Tatars, who hold Roosevelt's greatest wrath, "fine and high" Christian man that he was. In each of the conflicts he cites, it is not the "barbarians" who fired the first shot. When these people attempt to defend themselves against good, Christian Greek, Italian and Spanish aggression, they become "barbarians." The troubles (or the "endless war[s]" Roosevelt warned of) between the Western and the Islamic worlds today have all resulted from Western interference and aggression. Which of these Islamic nations have declared a war against a Western power in the past few centuries? Any aggression has stemmed from a sense of self-defense. That is not a defense of the awful Islamic terrorism going on today. But if these conflicts are to be remedied, one needs to understand what lies at the root of the conflict.

As an American, I'd take Western ways over the Islamic any day... so Roosevelt may not have had a monopoly on odious hypocrisy. But it's not the Islamic ways that I am defending; I am defending their right to live their lives the way they choose. If they become strong enough to impose their will, then would be the time to deal with them. The last few centuries, the ones who have been doing all the imposing have been the Christian West — and Israel — at the cost of much death and suffering upon the Muslim "half humans." "Barbarian Conquest" then becomes a relative term.



The Kinds of Reports that Swayed Roosevelt

From The Indiana Democrat Aug. 17, 1904:


The U. S. Will Be Asked to Interfere to Save Armenians.

The Armenian patriarch has ordered Archbishop Saragian, of the Armenian Churca in America, to head a mission to the powers, urging them to interfere in the name of humanity and put an end to the continual massacres of Armenians In Turkey. The archbishop will present proofs that in the last four months 8,400 Armenians have been massacred, including 3,000 children.

The mission will take a special petition to President Roosevelt.

Holdwater: 8,400 Armenians massacred, including 3,000 children, in just four months of a year not known for massacres? What kind of "proofs" could the henchman of the Patriarch, this archbishop in America, have presented? Would Roosevelt have observed the caliber of this evidence, or would he have been satisfied that a clergyman would not have lied? Would not successive reports as this have influenced such a "Christian" man already predisposed to believe the Turks were subuuman savages?




Perhaps Theodore Roosevelt had mellowed in his views since he wrote his "imperialist" essay above, in 1899. Ten years later, as he was winding down his presidential term, he gave an address at the celebration of the African Diamond Jubilee of the
Methodist Episcopal Church [Washington, D. C., January 18, 1909.] This "white power" forum is where I discovered it, and this fine and high church speech was entitled


On the whole, and speaking generally, one extraordinary fact of this expansion of the European races is that with it has gone an increase in population and well-being among the natives of the countries where the expansion has taken place.

What irony, given that Roosevelt lives in one of those nations. I don't think the population of his "red men" has improved. (Some are better off, having been integrated into American society... but their "well-being" is debatable.) The same can be said for the Hawaiians, of whom there may not be a single "pure" one left. The Aborigines of Australia is another case in point. The Tasmanians are a dramatic example against Roosevelt's claim. (Zero exist today.) The Crimean Turks and other Muslim populations the Russians conquered were not generally allowed to remain in their own lands, a policy Armenians certainly followed in eastern Anatolian lands around the time of WWI, and in the 1992 conquest of Karabakh.

Roosevelt does address the Aborigines and his own nation's natives, referring to the latter: "it is undoubtedly true that the Indian population of America is larger today than it was when Columbus discovered the continent, and stands on a far higher plane of happiness and efficiency." Was the 1909 Indian population greater than before the "intruders" arrived? Maybe he's including those with a lower blood degree requirement, a controversial aspect of determining tribal membership. Or maybe he was not doing his historical homework: this "encyclopedic" page estimates from 2 million to 18 million in North America before Columbus, and 350,000 (USA and Canada) less than a decade before Roosevelt's church speech.

Of India, he makes these claims:

England does not draw a penny from India for English purposes; she spends for India the revenues raised in India; and they are spent for the benefit of the Indians themselves.

I didn't know the English were so altruistic! Is Roosevelt looking at only one side of the story, as he has demonstrated his preference in the case of the Armenians?

...[T]he mass of the people have been and are far better off than ever before, and far better off than they would now be if English control were overthrown or withdrawn.

Again, it can't be argued that Western conquest brought certain technological advantages that improved the quality of lives. After a brief period of upheaval once the English withdrew, there are no "barbarians" from India who are missing the English.

There is no substitute for self-rule. What is better, living in less "civilized" conditions among your own, or enjoying some technological benefits while your more sophisticated occupier is eating your culture and people alive?

But the great salient fact is that the presence of the English in India, like the presence of the English in Egypt and the Soudan, of the French in Algiers, of the Russians in Turkestan, of the Germans in Southwest Africa and East Africa (and of all these peoples, and of other white peoples, in many other places), has been for the advantage of mankind.

Only if "mankind" is defined as white and Christian.


Hereros, possibly from the period in question

The Germans in Southwest Africa, under the colonial command of Von Trotha, decimated some three-quarters of the natives, mainly the Hereros, only a few years (1904-07) before Roosevelt gave this speech.

I have always been particularly interested, for instance, in the extraordinary work done by the American schools and colleges in the Turkish Empire, both Turkey in Europe and Turkey in Asia; a work which has borne such wonderful fruit among the Bulgarians, among Syrian and Armenian Christians, and also among the Mohammedans; and this although among the Mohammedans there has been no effort to convert them, simply an effort to make them, good citizens...

Actually, the Protestant missionaries tried their darndest to try and convert the Turks, but they proved incontrovertible. They then moved on to the Orthodox Christians, spreading the seeds of discontent against Turkish rule along the way.

As a result of the African slave-trade, the crime of the ages...

Interesting! So "the crime of the ages" was a greater crime than "...the Armenian massacre was the greatest crime of the war...", and it was his own "fine and high" civilized nation that had committed it.

Interestingly, the "White Power" site's forum had a reaction stating that Roosevelt was the first president who had a "Negro in the White House," or some words to that effect. Whatever was being referred to, I suppose the white supremacist was criticizing Roosevelt for his show of tolerance.

The education and uplift of the American negro now going forward should be accompanied by the increase of the missionary and Christian forces on the continent from which his ancestors came.

That pretty much sums it up in a nutshell. Theodore Roosevelt was deeply committed to his Christianity, making non-Christians unworthy of human consideration... in a manner of speaking.

Anyone who points to his "Armenian" comments are making use of the views of a racially and religiously bigoted individual. He is as conflicted and one-sided a source as they have come.










"West" Accounts


Armenian Views
Geno. Scholars


Turks in Movies
Turks in TV


This Site

...Is to expose the mythological “Armenian genocide,” from the years 1915-16. A wartime tragedy involving the losses of so many has been turned into a politicized story of “exclusive victimhood,” and because of the prevailing prejudice against Turks, along with Turkish indifference, those in the world, particularly in the West, have been quick to accept these terribly defamatory claims involving the worst crime against humanity. Few stop to investigate below the surface that those regarded as the innocent victims, the Armenians, while seeking to establish an independent state, have been the ones to commit systematic ethnic cleansing against those who did not fit into their racial/religious ideal: Muslims, Jews, and even fellow Armenians who had converted to Islam. Criminals as Dro, Antranik, Keri, Armen Garo and Soghoman Tehlirian (the assassin of Talat Pasha, one of the three Young Turk leaders, along with Enver and Jemal) contributed toward the deaths (via massacres, atrocities, and forced deportation) of countless innocents, numbering over half a million. What determines genocide is not the number of casualties or the cruelty of the persecutions, but the intent to destroy a group, the members of which are guilty of nothing beyond being members of that group. The Armenians suffered their fate of resettlement not for their ethnicity, having co-existed and prospered in the Ottoman Empire for centuries, but because they rebelled against their dying Ottoman nation during WWI (World War I); a rebellion that even their leaders of the period, such as Boghos Nubar and Hovhannes Katchaznouni, have admitted. Yet the hypocritical world rarely bothers to look beneath the surface, not only because of anti-Turkish prejudice, but because of Armenian wealth and intimidation tactics. As a result, these libelous lies, sometimes belonging in the category of “genocide studies,” have become part of the school curricula of many regions. Armenian scholars such as Vahakn Dadrian, Peter Balakian, Richard Hovannisian, Dennis Papazian and Levon Marashlian have been known to dishonestly present only one side of their story, as long as their genocide becomes affirmed. They have enlisted the help of "genocide scholars," such as Roger Smith, Robert Melson, Samantha Power, and Israel Charny… and particularly  those of Turkish extraction, such as Taner Akcam and Fatma Muge Gocek, who justify their alliance with those who actively work to harm the interests of their native country, with the claim that such efforts will help make Turkey more" democratic." On the other side of this coin are genuine scholars who consider all the relevant data, as true scholars have a duty to do, such as Justin McCarthy, Bernard Lewis, Heath Lowry, Erich Feigl and Guenter Lewy. The unscrupulous genocide industry, not having the facts on its side, makes a practice of attacking the messenger instead of the message, vilifying these professors as “deniers” and "agents of the Turkish government." The truth means so little to the pro-genocide believers, some even resort to the forgeries of the Naim-Andonian telegrams or sources  based on false evidence, as Franz Werfel’s The Forty Days of Musa Dagh. Naturally, there is no end to the hearsay "evidence" of the prejudiced pro-Christian people from the period, including missionaries and Near East Relief representatives, Arnold Toynbee, Lord Bryce, Lloyd George, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, and so many others. When the rare Westerner opted to look at the issues objectively, such as Admirals Mark Bristol and Colby Chester, they were quick to be branded as “Turcophiles” by the propagandists. The sad thing is, even those who don’t consider themselves as bigots are quick to accept the deceptive claims of Armenian propaganda, because deep down people feel the Turks are natural killers and during times when Turks were victims, they do not rate as equal and deserving human beings. This is the main reason why the myth of this genocide has become the common wisdom.