Chapter 26, “The American Mandate for Armenia,” opens
with a quote from General Harbord: “We literally dreamed Armenia and massacres.” I’d
say those who vehemently became so pro-Armenian definitely dreamed of an Armenia in place
of Turkey, and definitely dreamed up the many massacres that did not take place. (The song
with the line, “I’m a dreamer… ‘cause dreaming can make you mine,” illustrates
the hopes dreaming provides, when we desperately want something to be true.)
“While… in the spring of 1919… the fledgling Armenian Republic was trying to survive
assaults from Turkey…” Balakian begins. We’ve already provided American and Armenian
sources regarding who was assaulting whom, and the aggressor certainly was not the
torn-apart nation of Turkey... and least not with lands the Turks did not own before WWI
began. Balakian is referring to the period shortly after December 14, 1918, when Armenia
attempted a land grab attempt by launching a surprise and unprovoked attack on its
neighbor, Georgia. Days later, the premier of
Georgia declared: “Who had ever heard of war over a few incidents in a village or
two? The real explanation could be found in the character of Kachaznuni's government,
which, like the wolf, eats the calf because such is its nature. That government could not
live in peace and was obsessed with battling one or another of its neighbors, for like the
wolf, it had to devour everything.” (Richard Hovannisian’s “The Republic of
Armenia, Vol. 1”)
The chapter covers two fact-finding commissions to Turkey, the first being the King-Crane
Commission. The author fills us in on who these men were: Henry C. King was a “theologian,”
which sounds like he could have been a missionary (ADDENDUM:
Hovannisian tells us in Republic of Armenia, p. 323, that King was the
president of Oberlin College, the school for missionaries. King was not just a missionary,
he was a missionary king!), and Charles R. Crane was a former secretary of
the original Committee on Armenian Atrocities in 1915. Good, neutral, unbiased gentlemen.
They interviewed many missionaries. Turks who were interviewed were unwilling to “accept
the cession of any territory for the creation of a non-Turkish state.” (The very idea!)
I’ve read this report, and there were actually some parts that seemed open-minded, like
the outlining of the secret treaties
between England, France, Russia and Italy, regarding the carving up of the Ottoman Empire.
Very briefly, the authors even allowed themselves to pay the following compliment:
One may recognize fully the agreeable and attractive personal qualities of the Turks
that commonly make them the best liked, probably, of all the peoples of the Empire, and
that almost unconsciously turn most foreigners who stay long in the country into
However, King and Crane step into high gear afterwards, criticizing “the hideous
misgovernment” over the years. It took a lot of doing to juggle the many incongruous
elements within the empire, demonstrated by how former territories in the Balkans and the
Middle East turned out to be the trouble spots of today. Professor Norman Stone wrote in
“Where There's Trouble, There Were
Ottomans,”: “A look back reveals that whatever the Ottomans' many shortcomings,
they did manage for a time to maintain a multi-ethnic, multi-denominational empire with
cosmopolitan cities. It was not democratic, to be sure, but it was less oppressive, for
example, than other contemporaneous multi-ethnic empires such as Russia and China, and
later the Soviet Union.”
Their main witness for the Armenian massacres is the British propagandist Lord Bryce, who
was lovingly quoted as having said: "The record of the rulers of Turkey for the
last two of three centuries, from the Sultan on his throne to the district Mutessarif, is,
taken as a whole, an almost unbroken record of corruption, of justice, of an oppression
which often rises into hideous cruelty.... Can anyone still continue to hope that the
evils of such a government are curable? Or does the evidence contained in this volume
furnish most terrible and convincing proof that it cannot longer be permitted to rule over
subjects of a different faith?"
Here are my other favorite passages the authors wrote, to justify their “fair”
dividing up of Turkish land:
The very fact of her age-long misrule, coupled with her occupation of territory of
critical significance to the world, constitutes her a "menace to the freedom and
security of all nations," and makes unusual restriction in her case necessary, for
the greater good of the world and of her own subject peoples
(1) For Turkey is held, as Dominian has said, by "a people whose incompetence to
convert nature's gifts into use or profit is historically patent." [ Dominian,
"Frontiers of Language and Nationality In Europe," p. 236.] But striking as has
been their economic failure, the failure of the Turks has been far more than merely
external or material. She has acted rather as a kind of blight upon all the peoples she
has conquered. As Ramsey — possibly too strongly — puts it: "The action of the
Turks in every department of life has simply been to ruin, never to rebuild.... They
destroyed the intellectual and moral institutions of a nation, they broke up and dissolved
almost the entire social fabric; they undermined every educating and civilizing influence
in the land, and they brought back a great part of the country to the primitive simplicity
of nomadic life.... There is hardly a social institution in Asia Minor, showing any degree
of social constructiveness, that is not an older Anatolian creation, Moslemized in outward
form, and usually desecrated in the process."[ Ramsey, "Impressions of Turkey
" pp. 264.]
(2) Now the evil of this blighting influence of Turkish rule is vastly increased because
of the critical significance of the territory which she occupies… Turkey is simply not
conceivably equal to a great world responsibility — and the larger world interests must
prevail. Moreover it is certainly better for Turkey herself to be delivered from this
intolerable responsibility, and to have her own government taken out of the midst of what
has been through the centuries a center of boundless intrigue. The common people of Turkey
would lead a much happier life in a state freed from outreaching imperialism, and at
liberty to devote itself to the welfare of its own citizens.
Well, wasn’t that nice! (A… “blight”!)
The aforementioned was no doubt music to the ears of the British and French, likely most
responsible for the suppression of the report because they did not like its other
recommendations. The first part had to do with the Middle-Eastern territories won from
Ottoman Turkey, and both world powers had their separate agendas in the oil-rich region.
The British must also not have been happy about the part sticking up for the Palestinians,
as Churchill and others were married to the Zionist cause, by then.
The second part of the chapter covers the “Harbord Mission.” President Wilson
appointed Gen. James G. Harbord to lead an American military mission to Armenia, in order
to avert “disaster… more terrible than massacres of 1915,” according to an American
commissioner within Armenia, Maj. Joseph Green. (Reacting to news that the Turks were on
Upon meeting Ataturk, Harbord reported (in
Balakian’s words, citing “Mustafa Kemal Pasha and His Party,” World’s Work, 1920)
"Kemal ‘deprecated the Armenian massacres’ and blamed everything on ‘foreign
intrigue.’" Such responses run contrary to false Ataturk quotes used by the
Armenians, as with the (August 1, 1926) Los Angeles Examiner interview conducted by unknown Swiss
journalist, Emile Hilderbrand.
Harbord’s report claimed "a conservative assessment of the number of Armenians
killed," in Balakian’s words. The rest:
" ‘The official reports of the Turkish government’ showed 1.1 million
Armenians to have been deported, and Harbord stated that ‘this wholesale attempt on the
race,’ a premodern term for genocide, had taken about eight hundred thousand lives,
although he noted that many other estimates placed the number at over a million."
Notice Mr. Balakian’s helpful reminder, "a premodern term for genocide." Yes,
Peter, we get the idea your whole purpose is to remind the reader, "See? See, there
was a genocide. Please, please believe me, there was a genocide."
I wonder where these ‘official reports of the Turkish government’ came from? The
pre-war Ottoman census had the Armenian population at 1.3 million. Since there were
200,000 Armenians untouched from the Western part of the country, added to the 1.1 million
these "official reports" claimed… does that mean the Turkish government
concluded every single Armenian in the empire (aside from the 200,000 not subjected to the
relocation policy) was "deported"? I don't know… something isn't right, here.
The 1.3 million pre-war estimate, by the way, lies smack-dab in the middle of a dozen
Western (therefore pro-Armenian) estimates, ranging from 1 to 1.6 million. Peter Balakian
signed his name to a 1998 Armenian commemoration attesting to the survival of one million
Armenians, also confirmed in a New York Times letter he co-wrote. So how could 800,0000
to one million Armenians have perished? I don’t know… something isn’t right there,
(According to the League of Nations Emigrants’ Committee, the number of Armenians who
emigrated during the First World War from Turkey to Russia was between 400,000 and
420,000, updated to 500,000 by Richard Hovannisian. Arnold Toynbee wrote in early April
1916’s propagandistic “The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire” that
500,000 of the deported Armenians were alive, a figure that perhaps increased as the
relocation policy came to a close soon afterwards. Let’s not forget the 200,000 “untouched”
Armenians. Once again, how could a pre-war mean population of 1.3 million have lost
800,000 to 1 million? And of those who did perish, did they all die of massacres? Richard
Hovannisian wrote some 150,000 Armenians died of starvation, accompanying the Russian
retreats, in a 1967 work. Many Armenians died of famine, disease, harsh weather, and
combat… just like many Turks.)
Both commissions believed “the Turks would not stop trying to annihilate the Armenians
unless a third party interceded.” (P. 357) Since no third party interceded, and Armenia
is still standing around wreaking havoc today, it looks like both commissions were proven
dead wrong. Gee… I wonder if there was anything else in these reports that the
commissions could have been wrong about.
The initially pro-Armenian Niles and
Sutherland also issued a 1919 report, finding the Armenians guilty of atrocities The
report began by stating, “"In the entire region from Bitlis through Van to
Bayezit we were informed that the damage and destruction had been done by the Armenians,
who, after the Russians retired, remained in occupation of the country and who, when the
Turkish army advanced, destroyed everything belonging to the Musulmans. Moreover, the
Armenians are accused of having committed murder, rape arson and horrible atrocities of
every description upon the Musulman population. At first we were most incredulous of these
stories, but we finally came to believe them, since the testimony was absolutely unanimous…”
Niles and Sutherland’s report was suppressed by General Harbord. Professor McCarthy
speculates, "One cannot help but believe that their evidence was not what those in
power wished to hear."
(Ditto for those in power today, regarding the genocide industry. Let's make a note that
"Peternocchio" completely ignored the Niles and Sutherland report, even though
he undoubtedly knew about it.)
Balakian: “In the wake of renewed Turkish military
assaults on Armenia, John Sharp Williams, democratic senator from Mississippi, presented a
resolution endorsed by Near East Relief asking for immediate relief for the estimated one
hundred thousand Christian and Jewish women and girls held captive in Turkish harems.”
Well! That’s the first I’ve heard of Jews being held captive in… “harems.”
(Brother.) It’s kind of heartwarming that there has been a precedent for gullible or
self-serving politicians bringing up Armenian resolutions in Congress, based solely on the
hogwash of Armenian propaganda.
Woodrow Wilson, possibly the greatest friend of the Armenians, would keep trying with the
mandate idea, even though political interest in securing “Western Armenia” had
plummeted. He declared, "We hold it to be the Christian duty and duty of our
Government (shouldn’t a U.S. president, sworn to uphold the
Constitution, be aware the founding fathers wanted nothing to do with Christianity in
government?) to assume responsible guardianship of Armenia which now needs only the
advice and assurance of a powerful friend…" No, President Wilson, you were very
wrong. Armenia didn’t care for advice, nor assurance. Once they couldn’t get American
boys to shed their blood to retain lands that didn’t belong to the Armenians, all they
wanted from America was the almighty American dollar. This they succeeded in, with the
procurement of a 1919 $50 million loan (at 5% interest; worth perhaps half a billion in
today’s dollars) which the Armenians reneged on… along with $1.5 billion in the last
decade or so, thanks to their powerful lobbies, freely given to the Armenians, with the
United States getting nothing in return.
Chapter 27 is basically about how U.S.
foreign policy shifted in favor of the Turks because of oil… although all the
oil-rich lands taken from the Ottoman Empire were now in British hands. Turkey is an
oil-importing nation today, and does not produce a drop of oil, to my knowledge.
"In 1914, just before the war had erupted, the British had bought out the
remaining sectors of the Turkish Petroleum Company, including the Ottoman government’s
share. Thus, by 1919, the British were the dominant oil power in the Middle East,
controlling both (what is now BP) and the Turkish Petroleum Company." Further
evidence the Turks had no pull with oil. "The allies had divided up Turkey’s
oil fields among themselves,” “trying their best to keep the United States out
of the picture."
Balakian then goes on to explain Adm.
Mark Bristol "became in effect a public relations man for American business in
Turkey." He “worked hard to bring the missionaries and the business community
together." The author predictably made use of isolated quotes to make Bristol
out to be a racist, such as "The Armenians are a race like the Jews: they have
little or no national spirit and poor moral character."
Adm. Bristol was a great American who worked to preserve American interests, helping
to make his nation stronger. The "American" side of Peter Balakian should
recognize and appreciate that… unfortunately, his "Armenian" side
overrides everything else. Let us remember people spoke from the hip in those
politically incorrect days… especially a no-nonsense man of integrity like
Bristol. In order to characterize one as a racist, we cannot take today’s morality
and judge with hindsight. One has to take the complete works of what we know of
Bristol, and see if he would qualify for the Imperial Wizard’s slot in the KKK.
The letters of Bristol that I have read show incredibly high character… there is one in this site that readers can
examine to judge for themselves. If Bristol were to go on and on in a fever-pitched
tones about the sub-humanity of the Armenians, Greeks and Jews, I would then agree
he was a racist… exactly like the way Ambassador Morgenthau has done with his
writings about the Turks. Bristol was no more a racist than Abraham Lincoln, for
having been known to use the word "nigger."
Americans like Bristol were promoting the "open door policy," "geared
to promote American business interests, in particular the pursuit of oil."
No doubt American business was encouraged in Turkey… and rightly so, to help
expand American influence and wealth. However, the business of pursuing oil had
nothing to do with Turkey; Turkey had no oil. Soon, Balakian writes, American oil
companies jockeyed into position, "gaining a foothold in the Middle East."
The author goes through the typically unfounded charges about how the Turks
massacred Armenians in Cilicia, in 1920-21 as the French pulled their troops out
(5,000 Marash Armenians decided to go along with the French, afraid of what the
Turks might do to them. This is when the French left Marash in early 1920. 2-3,000
Armenians died from the conditions of the withdrawal, including famine, disease and
the weather. Is there any doubt Peter Balakian would prefer to count these Armenians
as among those who were "massacred"?)… along with the usual concoctions
about Izmir (Smyrna). "In spite of Mark Bristol’s efforts to censor news from
Smyrna," word reached the American people. Not only did word reach America, the
newspapers were in a feeding frenzy with the disgusting lies and propaganda. People
believed the Greeks and the Armenians were not responsible for the atrocities and
burning of the city, because it was these very same propagandistic elements that
conditioned people into believing the Greeks and Armenians were helpless victims,
and the Turks were the savage barbarians.
Not incidentally, even one of the worst Turchophobes who ever existed, the religious
fanatic consul at Izmir (Smyrna), wrote in his "Blight of Asia" work that Bristol was a man of honor and
integrity. If Bristol tried to “censor” any news (and what is the proof that
he did?), he was most likely attempting to prevent the false reports he was becoming
all too familiar with, by now.
In his private March 28, 1921 letter to James Barton, Bristol wrote: "I see
that reports are being freely circulated in the United States that the Turks
massacred thousands of Armenians in the Caucasus. Such reports are repeated so many
times it makes my blood boil. The Near East Relief have the reports from Yarrow and
our own American people which show absolutely that such Armenian reports are
absolutely false. The circulation of such false reports in the United States,
without refutation, is an outrage and is certainly doing the Armenians more harm
than good." Bristol knew exactly of Armenian shenanigans, and unlike
Morgenthau, acted honorably and even-handedly. Bristol was wrong about the false
reports doing the Armenians more harm than good, though; he obviously underestimated
their power and influence in years to come, and certainly would never have dreamed a
book like "The Burning Tigris" would still be taken seriously over eighty
young Allen Dulles
It was because of this outrage and his
respect for the truth that Bristol requested "the State Department (to) exert
pressure on the American press to shift their sympathetic tone toward
Armenians." At Washington’s Near East desk, Allen Dulles had a problem with
that request, as he believed the genocidal evidence to be "alas,
irrefutable." Alas, Dulles’ mind must have been dulled with all the
relentless Armenian propaganda, and he would have had no incentive to investigate
with an open mind. Or perhaps there were other forces at work. Balakian tells us
Dulles had to "deal with minority group pressure in the United States,"
and complained to Bristol: "I’ve been kept busy trying to ward off
congressional resolutions of sympathy for (Armenians, Greeks and Palestinian
Balakian then outlines "the final blow to Armenia," the Lausanne Treaty.
The United States would not be an official presence in this deal with England,
France and Italy, but sent three observers, including "the ever-present Admiral
Bristol." Vahan Cardashian whined that "the Department of State became a
concession-hunting agency for the Standard Oil Company." (Why is Peter Balakian
wasting time quoting the lawyer, Cardashian? We know from the letter of Near East
Relief’s James Barton what a lying snake he was… nothing he says can be trusted.
Oh, wait. I forgot… we have also established Cardashian is kind of a role model
for the author.) The Americans managed to get open passage for U.S. ships in the
Dardanelles, and "an open-door policy for American business, especially oil
There is that "oil" reference again. Sure, Americans held oil in high
regard… but what did oil have to do with the Turks?
The Turks were "adamantly against the idea of any
settlement for the Armenians." That will happen when a minority turns traitor and
joins the enemy upon the darkest hour of war, and when the minority massacres the bulk of
over half a million of your people. Balakian states the "Turkish delegation
maintained that the Armenian exodus from Turkey had been voluntary." Perhaps they
were referring to the Armenians who decided on their own accord to go to Transcaucasia and
other regions not under Ottoman control; I do not believe for one moment the Turks would
have been so foolish as to expect anyone to believe the relocation policy would have been
voluntary. If there is a source (a footnote at the end of another point but part of the
same sentence refers to Joseph C. Grew’s diary; Grew was one of the three observers, and
a minister to Switzerland), then perhaps something got lost in the translation.
"Barton noted that the Turks were fabricating tales of Armenian massacres of
Turks." Perhaps the missionary could not have allowed himself to believe the
atrocious crimes committed by Armenians, having heard only one side of the story (or
choosing to believe only what he wanted to) but what is Peter Balakian’s excuse? Don’t
tell me Peter Balakian, so obsessed with this topic, does not know of the crimes of his
forefathers. Has he absolutely no conscience, in presenting a line like this… making it
appear as though the thought was true?
Barton was aghast the Turks were unyielding, because the Armenians were around in
"that country" a thousand years prior. Yes, but how much of that time were
Armenians independent, and not ruled by others? (The Turks had freed the Armenians from
their latest oppressive rulers, the Christian Byzantines.) Furthermore, I wonder if the
good Christian missionary decided to give his home in Boston, Massachusetts back to the
The pope sent a message, crying for the Armenians to be saved from "further
deportation and death." The Turks responded angrily, calling it "Christian
propaganda," which Balakian mockingly reports. However… maybe it WAS
"Christian propaganda"? Lausanne was ratified, and the only deportation and
death between Armenians and Turkic peoples since has been in the hands of the Armenians,
in 1992 Karabakh.
I’m sure Peter Balakian could appreciate further what the
Armenians did by "buying" Taner Akcam. The ex-terrorist and escaped convict was given a job in Dennis Papazian’s
university as a “visiting professor,” after having earned a degree in a German
university, with no academic credentials that I could see. (As far as a faculty position
in Germany.) I understand the Turkish community in Michigan succeeded in forcing out the
putative scholar, who quickly found a new home in the Armenian-friendly University of
Minnesota. (An institution which supports one of the most
viciously one-sided “genocide studies” departments ever devised, backed by Armenian
Now Peter Balakian can tell his unwary reader, "See. A Turk agrees with us."
Taner Akcam may be a "Turkish historian" technically (in ethnic terms, at least
with the “Turkish” part; if reports that his father was 100% Kurdish are untrue), but
aside from sharing a common ethnicity, Taner is no Turk. Taner Akcam is 100% in agreement
with Armenian propaganda. The footnote for his reference within this chapter comes from
the Zoryan Institute (“The Genocide of the Armenians and the Silence of the Turks”),
where Vahakn Dadrian has earned his bread and butter while vilifying the ethnic group
these people love to hate.
Regardless, as invalid as a source may sound, I believe it is what’s being said that’s
more important, rather than the source itself. Here, it says Akcam has had a problem with
the "foundation myths" of Turkey, by creating a homogeneous national identity.
If I’m understanding correctly, "Kemalism… (refused) to acknowledge that the new
Turkish state had been built not from a war ‘against imperial powers,’ but by
expunging ‘the Greek and Armenian minorities'."
Many of the Armenians who survived the relocation (Toynbee wrote 500,000 of the resettled
were alive in April, 1916) were still within the nation; the Armenian Patriarch himself
estimated up to 644,900 within the Empire after war's end (in 1921; the Patriarchal figure
in 1918 was a whopping 1,260,000), added to the many who were refugees in other regions...
such as 50,000 in Iran and 500,000 in Transcaucasia, according to Richard Hovannisian.
(Again, the reason why "deportation" is the wrong word to use.) They were not
"expunged" permanently, and were allowed to come back. (Whereas an addendum to
Dennis Papazian’s “What Every Armenian Should Know” claimed, "Russia even forbade Armenian refugees, who
had managed to flee the Genocide, from returning to their lands, which the Russian armies
had overran (sic) during the war." Israel did not allow for 750,000 Palestinians
forced out to return. Russia did not let their deported Muslims return. The Turks allowed
for the Armenians to return.
Greece and Turkey allowed for a population exchange. That means if there were Greeks
"expunged" from Turkey, there were Turks "expunged" from Greece. If
Taner Akcam were a true Turk or a "historian" of integrity, he would not look at
this issue from only the Armenian side. Similarly, what of the Turks "expunged"
from Armenia? (1828: Muslim majority in Erevan. 1920: "Zero" Muslims left in Erevan.) ADDENDUM,
4-08: Greece was the one who insisted on the postwar population exchange, not Turkey; this
is according to Greek historians.
As far as "creating a homogeneous national identity"… I’d say Turkey was one
land justified in doing so, given that one big reason why the Ottoman Empire withered and
died was the nationalism of minorities, which led to revolts and breakaway nations. And is
there any nation that frowns upon a "homogeneous national identity"? Does not
Taner Akcam’s new Armenian-provided home, the United States of America, encourage such
an identity… despite being a highly heterogeneous and multi-ethnic nation, just like
Turkey? " ‘How happy is he who can call himself a Turk,’ was aimed not at ‘ethnic
Turks’ but at those who shared in this nationality,” wrote Professor Norman Stone (in Where There's Trouble, There
Were Ottomans); the Turncoat Turk should ask himself, What is the difference between
‘How happy is he that can call himself a Turk,’ and ‘Proud to be an American’?
One-time pro-Armenian George A. Plimpton wrote in 1926’s “The New Turkey”: "We
believe in America for the Americans, why not Turkey for the Turks?" It makes
perfect sense to me. I don’t know why it doesn’t make sense for Peter Balakian. Maybe
he would prefer, “America for the Armenians first, and some other incidental Americans
"Many Americans came to see how clearly the State Department had
sold out the Armenians over political interests and the oil fields of the Mosul"
Balakian writes tearfully. Political interests yes, but I still do not understand the “oil”
connection. Turkey had nothing to do with "the oil fields of the Mosul."
If this site
is to be believed: "An administration staffed largely by British and Indian
officials replaced the Ottoman provincial government in occupied Iraq, but Mosul
remained in Ottoman hands until after the Armistice of Mudros (Oct. 30, 1918), which
brought an end to the war in the Middle East."
This other site also confirms: "The modern state of Iraq was
created in 1920, as part of a peace settlement following the war. The victorious
Allies divided the Arab provinces of the former Ottoman Empire between them.
Britain, which had occupied the provinces of Basrah and Baghdad for most of the war,
and Mosul by the end of the war..."
Above is part of a map from
TIME Magazine illustrating latter day action in Mosul, with "Operation Iraqi
Freedom." Notice how far away it is from Turkey.
Looks like Peternocchio's nose
has been growing again. The British were in charge of Mosul after the end of the war
in 1918, and oil had nothing to do with the incentives Mr. Balakian would have us
2005 ADDENDUM: Bickering
continued for years afterwards; Turkey expressed desire to retain this area that was
once a possession. But as far as the outside world was concerned, and as history has
demonstrated, no amount of griping or pleading was going to get Mosul back in the
hands of the Turks. (Mosul was a key prize, or war booty, the British were fighting
for, proven by the Entente's secret treaties.) As TIME put it in an Oct. 27, 1924
article, "Turkey vs. Britain": "Agreement was impossible.
Turkey set covetous eyes on Mosul, synonym for oil; Britain set faith on the adage 'possession
is nine points of the law.;"
ADDENDUM, 4-08: As if to confirm the above reality, here is the last
paragraph of an article, LAUSANNE PARLEY AT BREAKING POINT; TURKS BLOCK PEACE that
appeared in The New York Times, December 29, 1922; what precedes the article is a
vicious attitude by the Allies, demanding that Turkey should bow to a new version of
"Ismet Pasha.... will reiterate his demand that the British surrender Mosul
Vilayet to the Angora Government. The Turkish delegates declare that this is the
question most likely to break up the conference, and assert that the Allies place
far more stake on Mosul oil than they do on capitulations, but are exaggerating the
importance of the latter so as to avoid the appearance of being grasping over the
vast oil supplies."
This clearly tells us
"oil" was never an issue regarding selling out the Armenians, and for
blackening the character of men such as Admirals Bristol and Chester. The oil fields
was one of the great prizes British sought, representing a primary reason for
warring with the Ottomans. Once the non-oil producing nation of Britain gained hold
of places like Mosul, there was no way that they were going to give them up.
Balakian writes: "The pro (Lausanne) treaty (American) people sounded like the
Turkish government, claiming now that the Armenian massacres had been exaggerated and that
many Turks had suffered as well because of war, famine, and disease — only their
sufferings ‘are less well known in the United States’." (The Turco-American
Treaty of Amity and Commerce, a report of the E.P.A. Foreign Policy Association 26 (1924),
quoted in Aftandilian, Armenia, 61.)
The mystery deepens. Is Peter Balakian just dishonest like other Armenian (so-called)
historians, or is he truly deluded?
Does he actually believe Turks did not suffer as well? He edited the re-issue of
"Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story," where Balakian's own guru had the ghostwriter
write "...About a million families were left without breadwinners, all of them in
a condition of extreme destitution… As a result thousands were dying from lack of food
and many more were enfeebled by malnutrition; I believe that the empire has lost a quarter
of its Turkish population since the war started."
Now why a re-issued book would need an editor, I don’t know…. I hope it’s not for
the same reason that the English edition of "The Forty Days of Musa Dagh" was
re-edited, where all references offering objectivity were deleted. I hope Peter Balakian
did not re-write or edit passages like the above. Regardless, as the editor, how could he
have ignored what was being said, and by Morgenthau himself… a source Balakian tells us
had "high moral conscience"?
Unconscionable. And the Turks not only suffered from "war, famine, and disease"…
but 500,000-600,000 innocent Turks were massacred
by Balakian’s forefathers, with a little help from the Russians, out of the over 2.5
million who died from all causes. "Mr. Human Rights," Peter Balakian, has
only referred to Armenian-massacres of Turks once, in just a quick paragraph, within his
whole hoax of a book… and only in the context of how justified the Armenians were, by
avenging their losses in the "genocide."
What Peter Balakian has inadvertently done (with the passage referring to what the
pro-treaty people were saying) is tell the world that what the Turkish government has been
saying about the Armenian "Genocide" has been the truth.
The Democrats voted unanimously against the Lausanne Treaty, in their proud tradition,
along with Republicans, to believe everything the Armenians would tell them. The lobbies
of the one million Armenians in America today can afford more than ever to keep American
politicians in their pockets.