The Turks Viciously Attack the Poor Russians

 

As W.W.I erupted, the Ottoman Turks, as planned, launched a major military campaign against the Russians on the Northeastern front. Armenians found themselves on both sides of that front.

Wasn’t it Russia that declared war on the Ottoman Empire? (Granted, with the provocation of German-manned Turkish vessels sinking a Russian gunboat, acting on their own to push the Ottomans into war.) And wasn’t it Russia that harassed its weaker neighbor, “The Sick Man of Europe,” with constant wars the century or so prior... significantly leading to the empire's decline? While it’s true Enver Pasha took the initiative with a campaign that would ultimately prove disastrous, the wording makes it sound like the poor Russians were lying helplessly in the wake of the aggressor Turks. (Czar Nicholas confidently "annexed" "Constantinople" at the beginning phase of the war, aware of how weak his neighbor was.) Obviously, the program also insinuates that the poor Armenians were innocent bystanders with no part to play in the conflict... instead of playing the active role they did, making an arrangement with Russia to stab their own nation in the back.

 

"Hostilities were opened by the Russians, who pushed across the border on November 1, 1914, though the Ottomans stopped them and pushed them back a few days later. On December 21 Enver personally led the Third Army in a counterattack."

Stanford & Ezel Kural Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, Vol. II. 

Leslie Davis

Another eyewitness, Leslie Davis, the United States foreign consul in the Harput region of Turkey from 1915 to 1917, documented everything he saw, including an experience at a nearby lake.

Leslie Davis

In 1915... thousands of Armenians, mostly innocent and helpless women and children, were butchered on the shores and barbarously mutilated. (Cue sad music.)

Leslie Davis’ observations also formed the most “valid” basis for the genocide segment of the other PBS program we’re exploring, “The Great War.” So Leslie Davis is an Armenian “Big Gun,” in their quest to brainwash people into believing there was a "Nazi"-style genocide. I always pay attention to what non-Armenian and non-Turkish observers of the period had to say. (There are, for example, reports from Germans... the Ottomans’ allies... that make me think. I read about them mostly from Armenian web sites. Armenian web sites, unfortunately, follow the same principles as Christopher Walker, and you can trust them as far as you can throw them.) 

However, when one encounters Western "eyewitness" accounts describing atrocities against the Armenians, two things have to be kept in mind: first, many Westerners entered this scene with a bigotry against the Turks firmly established. Some of these racist observers, like Ambassador Morgenthau, relied on biased third-party accounts (missionaries, Armenians) and reported them as their own. Secondly, there is no denying Armenians were massacred, many by Kurds who were getting back at the Armenians who slaughtered the mainly Kurdish people who lived in these regions, and also by Arab bandits. However, if Leslie Davis reported accurately of innocent Armenians getting butchered , that is not evidence of a state-sponsored genocide.

The program makes it sound like Leslie Davis was standing around, witnessing the butchery of "thousands of Armenians." Is that credible? If the parties doing the massacres were government representatives — as is the implication here — ...would the Turks have told the American consul, Oh, here, have a ringside seat while we get on with our bloody business? There is no question that Mr. Davis... like Ambassador Morgenthau...  simply swallowed the horror stories missionaries and Armenians were only too happy to tell him. (Leslie Davis did take a stroll or two away from the comforts of his consular office, and saw corpses here and there, unlike many of his co-consuls and Morgenthau. Massacres were committed by both sides in the intercommunal civil war, and the Turks never hid the fact massacres took place... unlike the Armenians, who won't admit they gave defenseless Turkish villagers as much as a nosebleed. Dead corpses, however, do not prove there was a government-sponsored extermination policy. Think: My Lai.)

More on Mr. Davis and other American consuls.

A genuine foreign eyewitness who made it his business to observe

 

 

Or victim of the desperate times?

The Turkish government today denies a genocide took place... and lobbies foreign governments and journalists, urging them to express the Turkish side. But when our producers asked to interview a representative of the Turkish government, their spokesperson refused; unless given up to nine full minutes of uncut, and uninterrupted, air time.

There is that “Turkish government” bugaboo again! Hey. It’s NOT just the Turkish government that denies a genocide took place.... there are many impartial scholars and historians who do as well, braving Armenian reprisals against their credibility or even their lives! As far as the Turkish government’s finally taking the steps to present the truth after the Turks’ image got relentlessly battered for nearly a century, and even earlier.... when the Armenians, Greeks and other Turk-haters were the only voices being heard... it’s about time. Naturally, the insinuation here is the Armenian “Genocide” is irrefutable, and the Turkish government is evilly engaged in challenging the Armenian “truth.” There has to be some force to counter the exceptionally well-financed Armenian organizations, and the smaller numbers of settled Turks in countries like America don’t have the comparative wherewithal or appetite to harp on this issue as obsessive Armenians do. On one hand, Turks are generally more apathetic, which is unfortunate; but they’re also trying to live their lives and not get hung up on the events of nearly a century ago.

Regarding the government spokesperson who gave his or her condition, my God! He or she would have been stupid not to. An interview can be taken and edited in such a manner to have the opposite effect of the actual spoken message.

A few years ago, there was a report on “60 Minutes” by Ed Bradley, which I believe was exploring the Kurdish issue. The program had naturally made up its mind that the Turks were the villains, but made the effort to interview one person to represent the counterpoint. This person happened to be a representative of the Turkish government... and his shots were mostly filmed in extreme close-ups. When his face was seen as taking up the screen while the other interviewees were composed in a normal head and shoulders manner... what do you suppose the effect was? There is definitely something more jarring about an extreme close-shot; it could present the effect that a person has something to hide, capturing the slightest twitch in a more magnified fashion. There are ways for filmmakers with an agenda to make a subject appear to lack credibility.

  A Turkish Scholar

Narrator: Today, most scholars acknowledge the history as fact, including this Brown university professor, Engin Akarli, who is of Turkish descent.

Akarli: We have to put things in their appropriate historical context; yes, these things happened...

(OFF-SCREEN FILMMAKER’S QUESTION): What are these things?

Akarli: Genocide, okay? The genocide, in the sense, that attacks against a distinctive part of the population.. that attacks against a distinctive, specific part of the population. In this sense, that's what I understood of genocide. It happened. We need to face it, to understand why it happened, under what circumstances it happened, and what are its moral implications, what does this event tell us about the times, what does this event tell us about great power politics, problems of nationalism in this part of the world, there are many issues that this particular sheds light on.

Naturally, when one manages to get a scholar who shares the ethnicity of the opposite side who speaks for your side... the legitimacy factor increases considerably. Needless to say, what supersedes all else should be the facts... and one’s belonging to a particular tribe should be irrelevant. That is, the fact that a professor of either Turkish or Armenian descent happens to support the other side does not necessarily make him or her correct. At least psychologically, however, getting the opposing team’s “cooperation” can be very effective.

The Turkish Scholar

Sometimes people have other motivating factors besides the truth. The first time I heard about a Turkish scholar (someone other than Engin Akarli) supporting the Armenian “Genocide,” my ears pricked up. Whoa! He’s Turkish, and he thinks the “Genocide” really happened? My first thought was, maybe he has come upon some definitive evidence... and I certainly wanted to learn more. As I said, the jury is still out... all people of honor can rely on are the facts. So far, the facts overwhelmingly point to there being no government sponsored genocide, and the evidence from the Armenian side almost always turns out to be fraudulent. However, if suddenly a “Wannsee Conference” sort of Ottoman Turkish meeting is trustworthily discovered (for example), I would have to sigh and say... yes, those bastard Young Turks definitely orchestrated the extermination of the Armenian people.

However, then I learned this other Turkish scholar had his own self-serving agenda; not all Turks are “good,” and not all Armenians are “bad.” To think in such terms would be racist. Turks can be just as susceptible to factors that have little to do with the facts of the case. Maybe a Turkish professor figures espousing the Armenian case would be a way to get the spotlight so desperately craved. Maybe a Turk has bought into the endless anti-Turkish sentiments the West is constantly bombarded by and has developed a prejudice against those of his own kind. (I’ve met Germans with a sense of self-loathing, because of their being German; I’ve met Jews who can be the worst anti-Semites.)

This is not to say Professor Engin Akarli is not a man of integrity. Because he has a different view doesn’t mean I’m going to attack his credibility... that would make me no better than the Armenians who are set to destroy the reputations of scholars they don’t agree with, such as Professors Heath Lowry and Bernard Lewis. I know nothing about Professor Engin Akarli. I certainly will keep my ears open to hear what he has to say. Maybe he knows something more definitive than I do.

What I gathered about the way his interview was handled on the program was that the professor initially appeared reluctant to use the word “genocide.” Only when the filmmaker prodded him, did he use that particular word. (Once he was "deflowered," he had no problem with repeating the word later.) It must be kept in mind “genocide” is one of the most overused words in the English language. Practically any killing of people can be referred to as a “genocide.” People easily forget there has to be “specific intent,” as described by Article II of the (1948 U.N.) convention... and the victims also must not be allied politically, as the Armenians violently were, with the invading Russians. As a result, what some British filmmakers hoped to present as the killing of British P.O.W.s in a proposed film suddenly became a “genocide.” It sounds to me like the professor was using the word “genocide” in a general sense, as he continued in a very “professorial” way, speaking of issues that weren’t directly related to the Armenian “Genocide.” However, this was only my impression.

"This is a question of definition and nowadays the word 'genocide' is used very loosely even in cases where no bloodshed is involved at all..."

Professor Bernard Lewis

Professor Justin McCarthy offers his views on Turkish scholars supporting the Armenian "Genocide."

After writing the above, I came across a correspondence between Turks and Professor Akirli which was, unfortunately (for me) written in Turkish, but I understood enough to get the gist of it. After watching the PBS program, one Turk requested documentation to back up the professor's claims, and the professor was kind enough to reply... unfortunately, not with any documentation, and just his opinion. (Which is what Armenians are really good at providing, instead of the facts, so the professor has something else in common with the Armenians.) The main thrust of his argument was that the Young Turks' Committee of Union and Progress had no right to accuse 400,000 Armenians, particularly the women, children and elderly among them. "Because they did it to us, we did it to them does not alleviate the guilt," the professor (paraphrasingly) opined. Governments have a responsibility for all citizens. Yes, sometimes it's hard to separate the innocent from the guilty, but sometimes it's easy, he went on to write.

Who can argue with any of that? It's true... and I am the first to agree the Ottoman government was guilty for not properly protecting the innocent Armenians who were forced to relocate. The Ottoman government was equally guilty for not being able to protect the hundreds of thousands of Turks/Muslims who were slaughtered by the Armenians, perhaps even before the Russian army swung by to lend the Ottoman-Armenians a helping hand.

In retrospect, it's easy to look at the tragic events transpired so long ago and say from one's comfortable armchair, yes, the Ottomans were heavy-handed in their response. However, I know from reading Henry Morgenthau's "Ambassador Morgenthau's Story" that the situation was really desperate for the Ottoman Empire. The nation was bankrupt, and "thousands of Turks were dying daily"... mainly because the Turkish men were mobilized for the army, and there was no one to till the fields, or to protect Turkish women and children from the marauding attacks of the revolting Armenians. Famine and disease were everywhere, and every available man was needed at multiple fronts when the nation was engaged in a desperate struggle for its very life.

Armenian women helped with manufacturing bullets

Yes, there were innocent Armenians who didn't want to play a part in their leaders' treacherous directives, but almost all complied; some did out of fear of knowing what happens to Armenians who step out of line... and many did so willingly, having planned for the opportune moment for years by stockpiling weaponry, and sneakily waiting for the right moment to strike, when their nation was at its weakest. When the whole community is supportive of such treachery, willingly or not, whom do you trust? Women may not be at the front lines, but they're helping with the manufacturing of bullets and the tending and feeding of the revolutionaries. Children can be active participants, as American soldiers were recently reminded with Iraqi kids during "Operation Iraqi Freedom"... in a New York Times report on the heroes of Musa Dagh, an Armenian bragged about how an Armenian child (Peter Gragosian) shot to death four Turkish soldiers. Did the Ottoman government actually have the resources to investigate every family to determine who was loyal, and who was not? How do you determine loyalty, anyway... by the way Armenian faces smile at you? As Enver Pasha said (in so many alleged words) in "Ambassador Morgenthau's Story,"  you may have the luxury of making such determinations during peacetime, but not with mighty mortal enemy Russia crashing through the gates and with world powers England and France smashing through Mesopotamia and threatening the Dardanelles.

We now can conclude America was a touch too xenophobic when the lives of Japanese-Americans were ruined during WWII... but the Americans did it in a Western country that was more "civilized" than how the Ottoman Empire is perceived, at a time more modern almost thirty years later, and — this is most important — with a people who did not betray their country... women, children and elderly included.

Would Professor Akarli classify what happened to the Japanese-Americans as "genocide"? Yes, their lives were not in danger as were the lives of some of the Ottoman-Armenians being relocated... but America had no enemies immediately knocking on her doors and had plenty of resources, relative modernity and manpower. Armenians were killed during the relocation, but was that out of a government-sponsored plan to deliberately exterminate them? If that's what you believe, Professor Akarli, provide the hard evidence; otherwise, please educate yourself on the meaning of "genocide."

I am not saying this "Turncoat Turk" is not genuine in his views, because I don't know the man. I find it interesting, however, that he would consent to appearing in such an uncompromisingly anti-Turkish program to express his views, in a land that is so uncompromisingly anti-Turkish. Does he share an ethnicity like (probably) Armin Theophil Wegner that is not evident from the surface... what is his driving force? There are opportunists who make names for themselves simply by being contrary... while I'm not saying Engin Akarli acted upon such a motivation, what is clear to me is, if I didn't see him on this program, I would have perhaps never heard of him... and probably, neither would you.

 

OCT. 2005 ADDENDUM: I've seen some other evidence that has softened my views on Prof. Akarli. While I still don't understand why he allowed himself to be used on this program, and why he has attended "genocide club" conferences, there are parts about him that I like, and I'm no longer putting him in "Turncoat Turk" category.

 

Instead of the truth of a human disaster, a great myth has arisen, the myth of the Evil Turk and the Good Armenian. The myth has been perpetuated by stories of the sufferings of the Armenians. The stories are often true, but they never mention the equal or greater sufferings of the Turks. The myth has been generally believed by non-Armenians because it fits well into a larger, centuries-old myth — the Terrible Turk. To Europeans, who had feared Turks for more than five centuries, the myth of the Armenian genocide seemed just one more example of what they had been taught was the savagery of the Turk. It spoke to a prejudice that had been nurtured by textbooks, sermons, folk tales, and ancestral fears of the horsemen riding out of the East. The false image of the Turks was too strong to be affected by facts. 

Professor Justin McCarthy, "Armenian Terrorism History as Poison and Antidote."

  During the "Commercial Break"

 "The Armenians: Survival of a Nation” was presented by the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) during “Pledge Week.” (As American public television is non-commercial, the network’s local stations appeal to the viewing audience to raise money. Airing “special” programs helps to get viewers to become members.) When the show aired in New York City the first time, two guests that appeared with the station personnel were the producer and director of the program, Andrew Goldberg, and one of the interviewees of the program, author Peter Balakian (his book credit is subtitled, “An American Son Uncovers His Armenian Past.”) What they had to say during the money-raising station breaks was interesting.

Andrew Goldberg also produced and directed 2000's "The Armenian-Americans"; people involved in one way or another in this 90-minute exercise (mostly, if not all, as interviewed subjects) were tennis player Andre Agassi, Mike "Mannix" Connors (Krikor Ohanian), Eric Bogossian, SCTV's wonderful Andrea Martin (whose gramps emigrated in the early 1900s from Ottoman Turkey, and changed the family name from Papazian), NCAA basketball coach Jerry Tarkanian and good old Peter Balakian.

 
Goldberg: I have to say, there were numerous efforts to stop me from telling this story properly...

PBS: Your life was in danger at one point.

The Producer/Director

Goldberg: At one point, yeah. When we were in Turkey, ahh... in a village, the Turkish soldiers came. With machine guns. And said to us, Are you journalists doing a story on the genocide. And they took us back to their base camp. I mean, it's rather terrifying. I mean, you don't expect that to happen walking down the street and suddenly having the American military point guns at you just for being a journalist. And there were so many attempts to do it, and, you know, I came to this with what I thought was a Jewish consciousness about that I was taught these types of, y'know, with the Holocaust, there's no room for revisionism, the truth must be told, history must be told the way it happened. And that's why I went as far as I needed to go to get this. That's what makes Public Television so special. This is where we can tell these stories.

Hmm. So according to Mr. Goldberg, the first accepted version of a story is the truth, and anything that comes afterwards to try to correct the inaccuracies would be “revisionism.” That would mean if the Nazis were still in power, all the lies they spread about the Jews would need to be accepted as the gospel truth. I guess Mr. Goldberg must still then believe the American Indians were the real historical savages.

Benjamin Franklin once said that generally historians do not write what has really happened but what they want to believe in. Obviously, history is a matter of perspective. Mr. Goldberg has nerve to proclaim the material in his program represents the truth to the exclusion of “revisionism,” when his sponsor was the Manoogian Simone Foundation. How do you spell “conflict of interest”?

A reviewer for the book, Death And Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, put the concept of "revisionism" beautifully:

In fact, revising one-sided history and changing deficient traditional wisdom is the business of the historian, and in few areas of history is revision so needed as in the history of the Ottoman peoples.


Regarding his story illustrating the uncivilized nature of the Turks (“I mean, it's rather terrifying. I mean, you don't expect that to happen walking down the street and suddenly having the American military point guns at you just for being a journalist”): There are a few things Mr. Goldberg would do well to bear in mind. For one thing, a true “journalist” does not look at just one side of a story. One who presents a one-sided story is either an unethical or incompetent journalist or a “propagandist.” Also, Mr. Goldberg was not in America; how chauvinistic to assume every nation must precisely follow America’s Constitution. For example, dare to proclaim there is no Armenian “Genocide” in France, a Western nation with limited freedom of speech, and you might well wind up in prison. And it’s not as though heavy-handed treatment by American police is the most unheard-of concept.

I don’t know if Mr. Goldberg meant that guns were being pointed at him in a literal way... sounds like he meant it as a figure of speech. If he was exaggerating, then since when does the process of being questioned by the police put one’s life “in danger”? What a desperate attempt to reinforce the impression of the Turks’ cruelty, as depicted in the one-sided program he has produced.

Secondly, the Turks have learned from how welcoming foreign journalists and media people with open arms, in the traditional style of Turkish hospitality, has backfired time and again. (For example, the lying producers of MIDNIGHT EXPRESS claimed they were shooting a documentary, in order to get permission to shoot  establishing shots for their racist production.) If you know you’re going to be at the receiving end of an expertly orchestrated campaign whose only purpose is to hurl mud at you, it would be natural to take some precautionary measures. There would be no way to stop Mr. Goldberg from telling his subjective story, anyway; the Turkish authorities must have figured they were going to get pierced no matter what, but there would be no reason to supply Mr. Goldberg with all of the arrows. 

Lastly, Andrew Goldberg’s “Jewish consciousness” might make his Armenian sponsors giddy with delight, as aware as they are of the sympathy-stirring value of connecting the Holocaust to the Armenian “Genocide”... however, he is far from doing the Jewish victims of World War II a favor by putting these unequal stories on an equal plane. 

CLICK ON THE PIC to hear Mr. "Double Killing"

When the discussion turned to why the Turkish government does not recognize the Armenian “Genocide,” Peter Balakian added (using a phrase of Elie Wiesel's) that the Turks were guilty of a “double killing.” Since the precedent for the first imaginary genocide has already been so firmly established, perhaps it’s only appropriate that a second imaginary genocide should follow. (Probably the Turkish government will not accept the responsibility for this second genocide, in which case it will be time for a “triple killing.” The more the imaginary genocides, the better the chance of getting even more sympathy... followed by the possibility of reparations.) Perhaps what Mr. Balakian, if he considers himself to be a fair man, should ask is the following question... put so eloquently by Dr. Turhan Baykan (in his article, “On Turkish Suffering”):

Why do the Armenians insist on an apology from us? I believe that any sensitive person would not ask anybody else to apologize for their parents’ sin. If they insist on it, as Armenians do nowadays, then I would suspect that they may have a ulterior motive in doing so, such as propaganda or politics.

The pledge drive break within the program provided for PBS representative Denise (Richardson?) to interview one of the volunteers who was handling the telephones.

Was this program made for the PUBLIC, or for Armenians?

PBS: With me now is Armen Nishanian, one of our volunteers... and a member of the New York Armenian community... why are you proud to be here, particularly tonight?

Nishanian: ...Also, as an Armenian-American, it's a tremendous opportunity. And a tremendous honor for me to be here, I'm thrilled...

PBS: Okay. Well, these phones have lit up. But for those who may be sitting home saying, well, my neighbor will call. What do you say to the Armenian community right now?

Nishanian: I think what the Armenian community should be doing is getting on the phone, making a pledge...

Perhaps America’s Public Broadcasting System should be reminded their duty is to represent the public as a whole, and not just select ethnic groups... and they should not engage in the practice of excluding less-advantaged groups, who don’t have the means to purchase television air time (along with American politicians).

 

 

The Great War (1996)

An Armenian Journey (1988)

The Forgotten Genocide (1983)