Tall Armenian Tale


The Other Side of the Falsified Genocide


  German Witness Felix Guse: Armenian Uprising  
First Page


Major Players
Links & Misc.



Mahmut Ozan
Edward Tashji
Sam Weems

 The propagandist prosecutor Vahakn Dadrian cited Felix Guse (Chief of Staff of the Turkish Third Army and witness to the events of 1915, in eastern Anatolia) with the conclusion that “there was no proof that the Armenians had any plan or intention to mount a general uprising.” Prof. Guenter Lewy busted Dadrian's "serious violation of scholarly ethics" in Lewy's book, "The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide." (Details)

Let's take a look at what Guse actually wrote, from an article by Dr. Selami Kilic:


German Head of the General Staff, Felix Guse's Article


Prof. Selami Kilic.

The good relations of the Ottoman Empire with Germany improved even more when the Union and Progress Party came to power. In this mood the Ottoman Empire entered WWI at the side of Germany. In this period German officers took office at several positions of the Ottoman Army and were influential in decision-making.

Therefore the political and military developments that Turkey was going through at that time, especially negative developments during the years of war, like the relocation decision have to be viewed from this perspective. Parallel to Turkish archive material, German reports and memoirs of German officers, who were serving within the Ottoman Army have to be evaluated equally.

Selami Kilic book

"The Armenian Question and
Germany" is a book written by
Prof. Kilic

According to Joseph Pomiankowski, during the war more than 40 German officers served within the Ottoman Army. One of them was Felix Guse, who was Chief of the General Staff of the 3rd army. Staying for more than 3 years in such an important post made it possible for Felix Guse to study the country and its people closely, and to deepen his information on events and developments. Besides Guse’s memoirs, which have been translated to Turkish, there is an article written by him entitled “1915 Armenian Rebellions and its Results”. In this article Guse stresses that false evaluations on the Armenian issue are widespread. He refers to his own experiences and he underlines them with quotations from significant sources. By doing this, he presents a realistic approach to the Armenian issue.

Actually Guse’s effort is concentrated on acquitting accuses, that tried to make Germany and the Germans responsible for fights and slaughters and other unlucky developments within the Empire. Still I consider his article as quite objective and realistic, as it can be seen in the summary of the article below:


As being in office at the Caucasian front for more that 3 years I could see that, against opposite claims, there was no region in the East, which was overwhelmingly populated by Armenians. Armenians were living in a heterogeneous environment, together with Kurds, Turks and other people, not only in the East but also in the whole of Anatolia. Armenians were more active than Turks in social and economical life and were getting along very well, until the British and the Russians indoctrinated them the idea of nation-state. The Tashnaks did not want separatism from the Ottoman Empire while the Hunchaks started turmoils in the population, which led to the massacres that the Armenians committed towards the Turks at the end of the 19th century.

I witnessed in 1914 in Sivas that the requests of the Armenian Community were fulfilled immediately, whereas the Armenians were simply opposing everything. The Armenian leader Pasdermadjian admitted in his book that the Armenians were secretly arming themselves. At the Tashnak Congress in Erzurum in 1914 Turks offered the Armenians autonomy when they joined the Turkish side and stopped supporting the Russians. The solution that the Turkish government found against the Armenian rebellions was the population-relocation, which intended to resettle the Armenians of Anatolia to Mesopotamia away from the war zones. Of course there were some difficulties during the relocation. But the fact that land and places to live were given to the relocated population, shows the goodwill of the Turks. This goodwill might have been at a minimum in the European sense, still for Eastern standards Turks did the best to comfort the Armenians. During the relocation there were losses, but so-called reports of some Armenians were nothing but propaganda. In these reports exaggeration and repetition of some events can bee observed. The negative events during the relocation were also considered as such by Turkish officials and high punishments were given to persons, who committed these crimes. German Consulate reports show that many governors openly helped Armenians. There is no proof that Turks intended to annihilate the Armenians. Another significant point is the issue of the number of Armenians. The given numbers of Armenians, living in Anatolia are exaggerated. Lepsius says that there were 40.000 Armenians in Erzincan, which is not true, as 20.000 Armenians were living in Erzincan. The claim of genocide is completely incorrect, because at the end of the war there was a big number of Armenians living in Turkey.

[1] Felix Guse, Der Armenieraufstand 1915 und seine Folgen, in: Wissen und Wehr 6, No.10, Berlin, 1925, p.609– 621

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Selami KILIÇ*

* Ataturk University -

- Armenian Studies, Issue 4, December 2001 - January-February 2002










"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.