Samantha Power is the author of "A Problem from Hell," which
put her on the map in the world of genocide. There is a page about her on the TAT site
(see link at bottom), comprised of the views of others. She has also been examined
briefly in the page analyzing
PBS's "The Armenian Genocide," where she appeared onscreen as an
"authority." She made very highly offensive statements, basically equating
modern Turks with Nazis.
A page dedicated to Power and her book at her publisher's site (HarperCollins, who also
brought us Peter Balakian's "The Burning Tigris"; she has been known to team up with
Balakian at times), tells us that the journalist and lawyer (or law student)
"teaches human rights and U.S. foreign policy at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of
Government, where she was the founding executive director of the Carr Center for Human
Samantha Power is a prime example of the hypocritical "genocide
scholar." She comes across as good and noble, because she is against genocide, and
who is going to argue with that? But she is exploiting human suffering for political and
professional gain. She is determining who the villains and victims are, and her
determinants have little to do with legitimate history, at least as far as her claims
regarding the Armenians. This "human rights" champion, by suggesting Nazi
comparisons presented on a stark black and white level, is spreading hatred. In
addition, by avoiding the crimes perpetrated by those she has designated as the victims,
she is telling us one people are more worthy than another.
Some may call that "human rights." But by choosing the better human group (one
side is completely bad, the other completely good), what she is advocating might be better
termed as "racism."
The Armenian massacres not only
roused bitter hatred against the Turks throughout the world, but were used as the
basis of war propaganda by the Allied press. Naturally no one mentioned the Turkish
massacres. In a way I am glad of that, for the exploitation of a people's sufferings to further a political end
is both cynical and inhuman, and in
the end is even hurtful to the martyred people themselves — theirs ceases to be a
human tragedy. No people in the world, after all, be they Turkish, Armenian, or Greek,
can be indicted as a whole. There is no such thing as a guilty nation.
Halide Edib, "Turkey
Faces West," 1930.
Ms. Power's agenda-ridden scholarship deserves a
good plucking. (Her book actually received a Pulitzer Prize, indicating a committee,
no matter how honorable-seeming on the surface, is only as good as the people who
comprise it. It's possible the people who gave her the votes were thinking, Ohhh!
She is an angel, she comes out bravely against genocide. Did these people pick apart
her partisan presentation? Obviously those on the committee, like the generally
anti-Turkish William Safire, did not even care.)
This page is going to be not the normally in-depth kind that TAT readers may be
familiar with, but a quickie. Samantha Power began her book with the Armenian
matter, in a first chapter entitled, "Race Murder." Part of this chapter
has been excerpted on her own page in the publisher's site, and we're just going to
look at a few things. (ADDENDUM: Along the way, as copy of the
book was acquired, resulting in a continuation of analysis. See link at page
Let's start off with her chapter's title. Note how disgracefully righteous she is.
The evil Nazi Turks decided to murder the Armenians, because the Armenians were
strictly guilty of belonging to a certain race. Just like WWII's Jews were
persecuted simply for being Jews. No consideration of all the history that had gone
on in centuries past, as the Armenians' relative prosperity, the absence of racial
hatred, the terror employed by the Armenians' revolutionary groups. A pooh-poohing
of the Armenians' allying themselves with their dying Ottoman nation's enemies, a
stipulation that the 1948 U.N. Convention on Genocide rejects in their definition
for genocide. Since Samantha Power has decreed that the Armenians were the poor,
innocent lambs and the Turks the big bad wolves, not a peep about the heinous slaughter committed by the
Armenians, which perfectly fell in line with race extermination purposes. (I have
still not read the chapter in its entirety, but I can write about her omission with
near certainty. Unscrupulous genocide scholars are highly predictable creatures,
their methods devoid of true scholarship.) The Armenians murdered hundreds of thousands of Ottomans who did
not fit their own Christian-Armenian prototype, in their efforts to establish an
ethnically Armenian state (today, according to the CIA Fact Book, Armenia is nearly
100% "pure"), but the lives of these people don't mean anything to our
"human rights" champion, Samantha Power.
|"Tzeghagron means 'to make a religion of one’s race.' Patterned after
the Nazi Youth It was also called Racial Patriots. Nejdeh wrote: 'The Racial Religious
believes in his racial blood as a deity. Race above everything and before everything.
Race comes first. Everything is for the race.' In the April 10, 1936, issue of
Hairenik Weekly, Nejdeh stated: 'Today Germany and Italy are strong because as a
nation they live and breathe in terms of race.' From Racial Patriots and Tzeghagrons,
the name of the Dashnag youth group was later changed to Armenian Youth Federation, or
the AYF, as it is currently known." (Arthur Derounian, Armenian Affairs Magazine,
Such was the philosophy of the Armenians not
only when they governed parts of eastern Anatolia with and without the Russians, but
when they ethnically cleansed their republic of Azeri Turks and Muslims during
1918-20, and when they attacked Karabakh in 1992.
"Race Murder" begins:
On March 14, 1921, on a damp day in the Charlottenburg district of
Berlin, a twenty-four-year-old Armenian crept up behind a man in a heavy gray overcoat
swinging his cane. The Armenian, Soghomon Tehlirian, placed a revolver at the back of the
man's head and pulled the trigger, shouting, "This is to avenge the death of my
family!" The burly target crumpled. If you had heard the shot and spotted the rage
distorting the face of the young offender, you might have suspected that you were
witnessing a murder to avenge a very different kind of crime. But back then you would not
have known to call the crime in question "genocide." The word did not yet exist.
Credit goes to Power for at least not insisting that Tehlirian tapped Talat Pasha on the
shoulder before shooting him dead. That is what her friend, Peter Balakian, vouched for as
writer (aside from the show's producer, Andrew Goldberg) on the PBS genocide show in which
Power appeared. But we can see Ms. Power's overactive imagination at work. She is trying
to tell us that Talat was another Hitler, and it was perfectly understandable for
Tehlirian to have taken the life of another human being. Power was certainly not there to
know whether Tehlirian shouted anything (if he did, it would have been in Turkish,
indecipherable to German passers-by; but the odds are, he was as silent as a cat), or how
contorted Tehlirian's face was.
Based on the facts, the expression on the killer's face most likely registered fear and
anxiety. This was a cold and calculated operation, in the works for months.
According to the trial transcript, Tehlirian was concerned about not botching up the hit.
That's why he shot Talat in the back of the head, he explained, because if his victim were
to see Tehlirian, he would not have made as easy a target. You can be sure Tehlirian did
not utter those dramatic words, and Samantha Power gets the "Ambassador Morgenthau's
Story" award for creative writing, and for placing quotation marks around words never
said. (For one thing, the lying Dashnak terrorist did not have his entire family, complete
with invented sisters, wiped out. One of his brothers, Missak, had also joined the
Russians, independent of Tehlirian. His father, uncles and third brother were likely in
Serbia, building up the family business. More on this point as we wrap up.)
Tehlirian evolved into a professional hit man
working for the Dashnaks' Nemesis organization. He had betrayed his nation by joining the
Russians at age 17, back in 1914, when the Armenians were ready and waiting to stab their
nation in the back. Finally hooking up with Antranik, the traitorous volunteer surely got
his hands very bloody, as he massacred many innocent Ottoman villagers, plum pickings
while the able-bodied Turkish men were nowhere near to defend them.
The special feature of voluntary
actions is that the Dashnak Groups, under the leadership of bloodthirsty hmbapets
(leaders of the Dashnaks like Andranik Pasha and Amazasp were called hmbapets,
which is akin to murderer, plunderer, disobedient) have exhibited their heroism
by mass murdering Turkish women, children, elderly and sick ones.
A. Lalayan, Soviet-Armenian historian, 1936
It was national justice
carried out in an international setting. Tehlirian had just murdered Mehmed Talaat,
the former Turkish interior minister who had set out to rid Turkey of its Armenian
"problem." In 1915 Talaat had presided over the killing by firing squad,
bayoneting, bludgeoning, and starvation of nearly 1 million Armenians.
Really? Would this be the same Talat Pasha who was so very friendly with the
Armenians? (See Guenter Lewy's The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A
Disputed Genocide.) Would this be the same Talat who issued orders to safeguard
Armenians and their properties? Yes, sometimes these orders were not followed;
central control was weak. (Morgenthau himself has testified to that.) Talat
attempted to halt the forced migration as early as August 1915, but locals had other
ideas; Talat had to keep reissuing orders until 1916, when the resettlement program
finally ended, or as Vahakn Dadrian put it, the genocide had all but run its course. (In the genocide
industry, this relocation program is a synonym for "genocide.")
If the idea was extermination, why would the "genocide" have ended so
soon? (And Power's figures are based on the propagandistic Armenian Patriarch's
population count. The real pre-war population hovered around 1.5 million, and she
and her pal Balakian agree one million survived. [See co-written Jan. 20, 2004
letter written to the New York Times, linked above; she
"revised" her mortality figure here to "more than a million." ADDENDUM: Mea culpa. I realized later her
"nearly one million" referred only to 1915. As you will read in "Part
II," however, this wasn't much of a culpa; it turned out "more than one
million" also referred to 1915, save for part of January 1916, when the
difference between "nearly" and "more than" could not have taken
place.] 1.5 million minus a million does not yield "nearly 1
million" as the mortality.)
It makes no sense whatsoever. As long as three years after the war ended, in 1921,
nearly half of the pre-war Armenian population was still sticking around what was
left of the Ottoman Empire, according to no less a source than the Armenian Patriarch himself. (In the co-written
Times letter, Power agreed the Armenians were instead "permanently
exiled." Not if such a large number remained while the Allies were occupying
the devastated nation, and not when all were allowed to return in the
next few years. If Armenians decided not to stick around, especially with prosperous
Christian nations widely opening their doors, it was the Armenians' choice. How
awfully dishonest of Samantha Power.)
And, sorry, "starvation" does not count as a "murdering
technique," when the whole country was starving to death. Morgenthau wrote in his Story book that thousands
of Turks were dying daily of starvation. Consul Leslie Davis had written (The
Slaughterhouse Province, p. 38) that bread was almost unobtainable even before
the war started. Even Turkish soldiers were dropping like flies of malnutrition (by
the "thousands," according
to one trial witness for the defense of Tehlirian, Liman von Sanders). It's not
ethical to make a charge of a high crime based on speculation.
Samantha Power has absolutely no proof that Talat acted as a Hitler, especially when
the real evidence points exactly to the contrary. Even the British could find no
evidence during their "Nuremberg" process of the Malta Tribunal (1919-21); they had to
let every imprisoned Turk go free. (And not for reasons Power's deceptive genocide
industry tells us, like British POWs, war weariness, and whatever else they can
think of. The one and only reason was, the British could find no genuine evidence.)
Yet Samantha Power has no compunction with pointing an accusatory finger at a man
who must be designated as innocent, as he has yet to be proven guilty. A lawyer (or
law student) as Samantha Power should have at least some familiarity with that
little legal rule of thumb. What kind of morality does this woman have, this
"human rights" champion, to accuse a man of a crime (and such a high
crime) when she has no proof?
In January 1915, in remarks reported
by the New York Times, Talaat said that there was no room for Christians in Turkey
and that their supporters should advise them to clear out.
So this is what she is using as "evidence." Reportage from the biased New
York Times. It's inspiring to see such an
example of Pulitzer Prize winning "scholarship," folks. Let's get to the
bottom of these "admissions of guilt" by way of a primary genocide guru,
of the best examples of invented Ottoman admissions of guilt may be that concocted
by the American ambassador Morgenthau. Morgenthau asked his readers to believe that
Talat Pasa offhandedly told the ambassador of his plans to eradicate the Armenians. Applying common sense and some knowledge of diplomatic practice helps
to evaluate these supposed indiscretions. Can anyone believe that the Ottoman
interior minister would actually have done such a thing? He knew that America
invariably supported the Armenians, and had always done so. If he felt the need to
unburden his soul, who would be the last person to whom he would talk? The American
ambassador. Yet to whom does he tell all? The American Ambassador! Talat Pasa was a
practical politician. Like all politicians, he undoubtedly violated rules and made
errors. But no one has ever alleged that Talat Pasa was an idiot. Perhaps Ambassador
Morgenthau knew that the U.S. State Department would never believe his story, because
he never reported it at the time to his masters, only writing it later in a popular
Justin McCarthy, Let
Historians Decide on So-called Genocide
Let's hold off on what this New York Times article said and concentrate on the reasoning
of Prof. McCarthy. Knowing of the intense anti-Turkish bias in America, Talat was
not going to be foolish enough to tell a potentially hostile American reporter (or
any other "outsider," as in this case; read on) that the Christians were
basically done for. In order to support her dishonest thesis, Power is ready to
accept the truth of the Times article without question, not even considering
that the reporter could have been just as inventive as Power, regarding the words
put into Tehlirian's mouth as the Armenian assassin opened fire.
But why don't we get to the bottom of Power's "source"? Here we go, from
"SAYS TURKS ADVISE CHRISTIANS TO FLEE," The New York Times, January 11,
ATHENS, Jan. 9, (Dispatch to The London Daily Telegraph.) --- A man
arriving from Constantinople who is in a position to know the facts has given me a
mass of information concerning the present condition of affairs in the Turkish
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the reporter was based in Athens, Greece, surely what
might be called "objective territory" in regards to matters Turkish. And
the Times reporter appears to have used an altogether different newspaper's
source, which in turn is already an anonymous phantom, whom we are asked to believe
is in "a position to know."
And the relevant passage is below:
To the Greek Patriarchate, who was sent to Talaat Pasha to remonstrate against
the excesses committed by the organs of his Ministry, he unequivocally replied that
there was no room for Christians in Turkey and that best the Patriarchate could do
for his flock would be to advise them to clear out of the country and make room for
So we're talking about the hearsay of a phantom source, one additional step removed
from the New York Times (as it appears to have originally been a London
newspaper's story) repeating the hearsay of the Greek Patriarchate, whom we know
would never sink to the level of propaganda, or would be interested in showing the
Turks as monsters.
A professional historian can also not overlook the mass manipulation of newspaper
"genocide" coverage by the British war propaganda division, also operating
on U.S. soil, in addition to missionary organizations. For example: "...[G]etting
(American) journalists drunk was an essential part of the operation. We do not know
how many stories (Wellington House) planted, or who was paid what."
It is truly astounding that Samantha Power is offering the above as "historical
proof." Words simply cannot describe her shamelessness.
In her biography, we learn that Power served as a journalist for a period of time,
writing for newspapers such as the Armenian mouthpiece, The Boston Globe. It
would be interesting to dissect Power's journalistic ethics in articles she has
written, if the above serves as her standards for truth.
On April 25, 1915, the day the Allies invaded Turkey, Talaat ordered
the roundup and execution of some 250 leading Armenian intellectuals in Constantinople. In
each of Turkey's six eastern provinces, local Armenian notables met roughly the same fate.
Armenian men in rural areas were initially enlisted as pack animals to transport Turkish
supplies to the front, but soon even this was deemed too dignified an existence for the
traitorous Christians. Churches were desecrated. Armenian schools were closed, and those
teachers who refused to convert to Islam were killed. All over Anatolia the authorities
posted deportation orders requiring the Armenians to relocate to camps prepared in the
deserts of Syria. In fact, the Turkish authorities knew that no facilities had been
prepared, and more than half of the deported Armenians died on the way. "By
continuing the deportation of the orphans to their destinations during the intense
cold," Talaat wrote, "we are ensuring their eternal rest."
"Talaat ordered the roundup and execution of some 250 leading Armenian
intellectuals in Constantinople"
The roundup of these ringleaders was ordered, but for her to add "execution" is
libelous and hateful. Her pal Balakian's relative (The "Action Priest") was among the
rounded-up, and if the idea was "execution," he and others (like the musician,
Komitas, released after two weeks) could not have possibly survived. The ones who were
executed paid the price that practically all nations demand, especially in those days, of
those who commit treason. The truth behind April 24.
(Note Power's date is April 25. In point of fact, the arrests took place on both the 24th
and the 25th.)
"Armenian men in rural areas were initially enlisted as pack animals to transport
Turkish supplies to the front, but soon even this was deemed too dignified an existence
for the traitorous Christians."
No, Armenian men... as Armenian propaganda loves to tell us... were all conscripted in
order to conveniently round them up and dispose of them. (No Armenian men were left
behind, remember? That's why the "genocide" only targeted women, children, and
the elderly.) The truth is, many Armenians refused to be conscripted, revolted or crossed the border to join the
Russians. Those who were conscripted were disarmed for the one reason that the Armenians
couldn't be trusted. (A bankrupt empire does not go through the trouble of training and
equipping men for show, especially when every man is needed in a desperate life or death
struggle.) These Armenian soldiers weren't just going to be sent home, they needed to do
something. They were put into use in labor battalions. Power's ending statement has no
basis in reality; what she is getting at is the Armenians needed to be executed instead.
While crimes were committed against Armenian soldiers (as with one famous example, where
Vehib Pasha punished the perpetrators, providing evidence against
"genocide"), there is no evidence for the systematic slaughter of Armenian
soldiers, and Power is demonstrating her prejudices once again.
who refused to convert to Islam were killed."
I wonder if she will point to another New York Times article to back up that claim.
Now, about that "deserts of Syria" business (how do you like that. A shameless
propagandist like Power actually used the word "relocate" as part of her
sentence, to describe the "deportation." The latter word, of course, means
banishment outside a country's borders, which was not the fate of the Armenians. They were
moved around the country, not out of the country. Propagandists such as
Power prefer "deportation," because it sounds more "evil"):
The Armenians were relocated to the region known as "The Fertile Crescent." The
propaganda industry loves to use the term "desert," and it's heartwarming to see
Ms. Power is so loyal to the rules of her unscrupulous genocide club. In point of fact,
the idea was to transport Armenians to villages where they would not surpass 10% of the
population. There were relocation centers throughout Anatolia as well, such as a center in
Ankara; it was not just "Syria."
"More than half of the deported Armenians
died on the way."
That is absurd. Most Armenians died of famine and disease, particularly as the years went
on. The total Armenian mortality was around half a million. The number of Armenian dead
provided by propagandists includes Armenians having died of any reason whatsoever. For
example, Richard Hovannisian wrote in 1967 some 150,000 died of famine and disease while
accompanying the Russian retreats. The Turks were nowhere in sight. But in this dishonest
genocide industry, these unfortunates must also be added to the "genocide" toll.
Morgenthau dishonestly made sure to avoid saying so in his Story book, but his private
communications revealed that an Armenian representative told him (in September 1915) that 500,000 Armenians had reached their
destinations and some were earning their livings. (In the early part of the following
year, a highly biased U.S. consul reported a
similar figure. Wellington House propagandist Arnold Toynbee concurred with 500,000, in
his Blue Book released by 1916's end, but referring to Armenians until April of that
year.) So if more than half died on the way, as Silly Samantha Power is telling us, more
than a million would have needed to have been "deported," which is not in tune
with the reality. (Boghos Nubar's guess, for example, was 600,000-700,000 for the total
of the "deported," in a Dec. 11, 1918 letter
to a French minister.)
(And we need to stress the "on the way" part, that is, Power is telling us
over half lost their lives almost immediately, before reaching their destinations. In
response to Armenian terrorism of the 1970s, "Le Figaro," the French newspaper not known to be Turk-friendly,
conducted an investigation and concluded a reasonable "15,000 Armenians
dead from shootings, sickness and deprivation on the march." We can never be sure
how many died from "massacres," but we can be sure the bulk of the deaths
occurred for non-murderous reasons, the same as for most of the over 2.5 million other
dead Ottomans we never hear about.)
(Let's bear in mind Power has told us a million or so died in 1915; if a million
represented "half," then Power is telling us around two million were
"deported," more Armenians than existed in the entire nation.)
And as far as that last line where Talat was diabolically planning the deaths of all the
orphans... I wonder if Power footnoted this quote in her book. (Yes,
she did. See "Addendum" below.) I am certain it will make for a great
laugh to see what the source was. Could it be an Andonian
I tried to get to the bottom of where this nutty quote came from, by running a search. Few
links came up, and most actually repeated the line, using Samantha Power herself as the
source. One was a kind of "virtual classroom" link, based in Boston
(Massachusetts, where Power calls home. This is, of course, "Armenian country"),
called "Learning to Question."
"Ann Coulter" of the genocide set:
Samantha Power, from the PBS "genocide" show
Do you see the evil that Power and her ilk are performing? She is
providing inaccurate, prejudicial, propagandistic information, as long as her agenda keeps
getting fulfilled. Her book has won a Pulitzer Prize. She is now recognized as an
"authority." Here is this educational site, freely quoting from Power's book.
Little do these impressionable students know how they are being manipulated.
It is a crime. Power is drumming into the heads of these youngsters that the Turks were no
different than the Nazis. As we mentioned earlier, in the 2006 PBS genocide program, Power actually
equated modern, and not Ottoman, Turks with the Nazis.
I had to dig up a copy of the book to see what the source of Talat's "Kill
the orphans" quote was; Here it is:
"A People Killed Twice," January 27, 2001, The Guardian:
"Talaat Pasha, Ottoman minister of the
interior, was the genocide's main architect. He wrote, 'By continuing the
deportation of the orphans to their destinations during the intense cold, we are
ensuring their eternal rest.' This uncannily prefigures the Nazis' welcoming of
the Jews to Auschwitz with the sardonic words, 'Now you are on the road to
Yes, Samantha Power's "historical source" is a biased genocide article.
An article written by Julia Pascal, a Holocaust-obsessed (as one can determine
from her choice of productions)
actress and theatrical director. It's shocking!
What an appropriate analogy to what took place during the WWI years, as Prof.
"(Missionary and British propaganda) supported each other. Again and again,
in the missionary propaganda against the Turks in the United States you see
statements such as, 'You can tell that what we say is true because our old friend,
Ambassador Bryce, agrees with us.' The two propagandas fed on each other, when in
fact they were mainly drawn from the same sources, primarily the
You can see today's dishonest genocide industry is doing the same thing. It no
longer even matters to investigate what Julia Pascal's source was. All Samantha
Power has to do is point to another horribly prejudiced genocide article to
establish her "proof"; as with the propaganda of the past, we have a
feeding off of one another.
(A point to bear in mind the next time you read, among the pathetic examples
offered by the genocide industry to prove this mythological genocide, the opinion
of the International Association of Genocide Scholars. Of course they are all
going to agree with one another.)
The funny thing is, Power is simply accepting Pascal's word on highly critical
"evidence" making Talat (i.e., the "Ottoman Hitler," in
Pascal's irresponsible wording) out to be a monster. Yet Pascal is not in
agreement with Power in a number of other details, a factor that would have made a
conscientious scholar very wary before accepting other statements at face value.
For example, Pascal offers "more than 300" as those arrested on April
24, versus Power's 250. (The date also does not agree with Power's April 25; yet
do not fear, they are both 100% in line that every single arrested Armenian was
murdered.) In addition, Pascal contends that out of an original two million, only
500,000 Armenians survived, one-half of Power's one million.
But to really demonstrate what an unreliable source Pascal is, she declares
elsewhere in her article that one-third of the Armenians were "wiped
out." If an author can't get straight whether the mortality was one-third or
three-quarters — in the very same article — how could a serious scholar
blindly trust such an author? Particularly when all the author offers as to the
source of her incriminating "evidence" is her word? (Pascal surely must
not have made up what she offered, only accepted — equally as blindly —
another source of propaganda putting words into Talat's mouth. Pascal does not
make pretensions about being a scholar, of course, but Samantha Power does. A real
scholar would have been duty-bound to investigate an authoritative source.)
ADDENDUM, 8-07: Pascal's
source for Talat's "Kill the orphans" quote was an Aram Andonian
forgery, idenitified as "No. 63, to the General Committee for settling
the deportees" in the 1964 reprint of his "Memoirs of Naim Bey";
it s unsigned, but since the forged telegram ends with a request for money, it is
unlikely that the writer was intended to be Talat. Vahakn Dadrian ascribes this
telegram (identifying it as "No. 37") to Abdulahad Nuri (see below
second Halide Edib photograph on this page). So Samantha Power not only trusted the word of a
genocide fanatic who wrote "Talat" for "Nuri, but Power
unforgivably gave credence to an evil forgery. Should the reader continue on to
Part II of this analysis, you will discover Power will point to an Aram Andonian
forgery a second time.
Pascal's entire article is predictably riddled with inaccuracies and falsheoods,
such as making it sound as though the U.N.
has recognized this so-called genocide. She offers inconsistencies such as,
"In 1901, Protestant missionary Theresa Huntington Ziegler chronicled a
massive haemorrhaging of Armenians towards France, Egypt, Lebanon, South America,
Palestine and the Sudan"... which serves as reason why the pre-war population
could not have been as sky-high as two million. She has allowed herself to get so
carried away in genocide-mania, her offerings sink to absurd levels such as,
"''resettlement' [is] a euphemism for death."
It is fitting that a non-scholar such as Samantha Power would support her writings
with the "evidence" offered by such an embarrassing source.
State) has used its right to defend its existence against Armenian organisations
that had fomented and incited disorders and rebellions at the instigation of the
Russians by relying on Russian arms."
Leo (Arakel Babakhanian), Armenian historian, Turkahai
Heghopokhutian Kaghaparapanoutiunu (The Ideology of the Turkish Armenian Revolution), published in Armenian,1934, Paris.)
"Official proclamations," like this one from June 1915, cropped up around
Our Armenian fellow countrymen, ... because ... they have ... attempted to destroy
the peace and security of the Ottoman state, ... have to be sent away to places
which have been prepared in the interior ... and a literal obedience to the
following orders, in a categorical manner, is accordingly enjoined upon all
With the exception of the sick, all Armenians are obliged to leave within five days
from the date of this proclamation ...
Although they are free to carry with them on their journey the articles of their
movable property which they desire, they are forbidden to sell their land and their
extra effects, or to leave them here and there with other people ...
The conditions varied depending on different localities. The average notice appears
to have been about a week. That was
generally better than what WWII era
Japanese-Americans got. As the penultimate link will demonstrate, missionary Henry
Riggs' "Days of Tragedy in Armenia," painted a different form of
evil upon the Turks, by keeping the Armenians on edge with unpredictable notices, so
that they may sell their goods at the worst prices. So now which propaganda do we
believe? That's a tough call, but the point is the Armenians were certainly not
"forbidden" to sell their goods. Other sources confirm this. (They were
taken dreadful advantage of, to be sure, but Power is exercising — once again —
terrible scholarship by making a statement with no basis in fact. What she is
getting at, especially with the idea that Armenians were even forbidden to store
their goods with trusted friends, is that all of their wealth would need to be left
alone, to be stolen.) (ADDENDUM, 8-06: The diary of Hrant
Sarian reports the people were first
allowed to sell their possessions, and the sales later became prohibited. The July
25th entry reveals no problem in the storing of goods with friends.)
Did you catch the part about the "sick," by the way? Why would the sick
have been exempted, if the idea was extermination?
The Young Turks — Talaat; Enver Pasha, the minister of war;
and Djemal Pasha, the minister of public works — justified the wholesale
deportation of the Armenians by claiming that it was necessary to suppress Armenian
If there were no revolts, there
would have been no "deportation"; simple as that. Even the first prime
minister of Armenia agreed.
Jemal Pasha says in his memoirs he had
nothing to do with the "deportation." If he was off to govern Syria and
Palestine by then, we would need to believe him. It's not like he could have been
consulted by telephone, to participate in the multiple meetings that must have taken
place to arrive at this difficult decision. Now Samantha Power is correct in that
Jemal felt the resettlement was justified because of the Armenian revolts. (He was
joined in that opinion by no less than Morgenthau's boss, U.S. Secretary of State
Robert Lansing [in 1916]; even some Armenian historians, as the one above,
have agreed with the same. ADDENDUM, 10-06: Borian is another, back in
1929.) But she is making it sound as though Jemal Pasha bore responsibility
for the decision. Armenian propaganda tells us it was these three who were
responsible for establishing an extermination program. Power is adding to the
demonization of a man who did much in his power to save Armenians. Is this the kind
of "scholarship" one would expect from a Pulitzer Prize winning book? (By
the way, before going south to govern Syria, Jemal was the Minister of the Navy, not
As for Enver, here are the beginnings of his views, leading to the relocation decision. Initially, he was
truly for "deportation," to kick the Armenians out of the country, forcing
them through the hazardous front lines of war, just like the Russians had been doing
with their innocent Muslims. Ironically, the CUP leaders chose what Prof. Lewy
described as a "relatively humane" process; such doesn't matter to
ethically-challenged "human rights" champions as Samantha Power. She will
cry "murder" in any event, with no regard for factual evidence.
had declared war on Turkey the previous year, it had invited Armenians living within
Turkey to rise up against Ottoman rule, which a small minority did. Although two prominent
Ottoman Armenians led a pair of czarist volunteer corps to fight Turkey, most expressed
loyalty to Constantinople.
The whole of the Ottoman-Armenian community were "belligerents de facto, since
they indignantly refused to side with Turkey," as Boghos Nubar offered in a nutshell. Leon Surmelian's "I Ask You, Ladies and Gentlemen," made
the traitorous attitude of the Ottoman-Armenians crystal clear. And the Armenian corps
that the "prominent Ottoman Armenians" led were
comprised mainly of Ottomans, not
But this did not stop the Turkish leadership from using the pretext
of an Armenian "revolutionary uprising" and the cover of war to eradicate the
Armenian presence in Turkey.
The nation was engaged in a hazardous life or death struggle which resulted ultimately in
its death. The "Sick Man" was up against world superpowers on multiple fronts
bent on the extinction of the Ottoman Empire. The last thing the Ottomans needed were its
treacherous Armenians rising up throughout the land, and forming a fifth column against
beleaguered Ottoman armies. This was no "pretext," and it is highly dishonest of
Samantha Power to make it seem that way. Either she's being dishonest, or she's ignorant;
both possibilities serve as the antithesis to what true scholarship would entail.
Very few of those killed were plotting anything other than survival.
Yes, there certainly were innocents. That's the reality of war. Certainly there were many
innocents among the over 2.5 million "Turks" who were killed, around a fifth at the hands of murderous
Armenians. Our "human rights" champion will not shed tears on these others. To
her, they simply don't exist.
The atrocities were carried out against women, children, and
Those comparatively few (most died from other reasons) who were directly murdered were
killed by renegade forces. There is no evidence linking the central government.
They were not incidental "by-products" of war but in fact
resulted from carefully crafted decisions made by Turkey's leaders.
Predictably, Silly Samantha Power has no ethical problems with making statements as the
above, even though she simply has no factual evidence. It's pretty frightening. And she's
supposed to be a lawyer (or student of law), too.
In June 1915 Erzindjan, the hometown of Talaat's eventual
assassin, was emptied. Soghomon Tehlirian, then nineteen, marched in a column of
some 20,000 people, with his mother and siblings — two sisters of fifteen and
sixteen, another of twenty-six who carried a two-and-a-half-year-old child, and two
brothers of twenty-two and twenty-six. The journey was harrowing. The gendarmes said
to be protecting the convoy first dragged Tehlirian's sisters off behind the bushes
to rape them. Next he watched a man split his twenty-two-year-old brother's head
open with an ax. Finally, the soldiers shot his mother and struck Tehlirian
unconscious with a blow to the head. He was left for dead and awoke hours later in a
field of corpses. He spotted the mangled body of a sister and the shattered skull of
his brother. His other relatives had disappeared. He guessed he was the sole
survivor of the caravan.
Let's say it loud and clear:
Silly Samantha Power is an idiot.
(Assuming she reported the above with belief. If she wrote these words knowing them
to be untrue, we would have to think of another word to describe her, but this word
would be far less complimentary.)
Soghoman Tehlirian was nowhere near this caravan. He was likely busy killing
innocent Turks, with Antranik. The Dashnak hit man completely made up his story, to
tug at the heartstrings of bigoted Christians.
We need no other source than a partisan article on the assassin that appeared in The
Armenian Review (Nov. 1960); it answers a lot of questions, if one reads between
the propagandistic lines.
It sounds like the only people from Tehlirian's immediate family who got killed were
his mother and one brother.
The trial transcripts are very revealing, as well. Tehlirian's own defense attorney,
Werthauer, confirmed that "The defendant stated today that, except for his
brother’s body, he did not see the corpses of any of his relatives." That
means no "mangled body of a sister." As far as can be determined,
Tehlirian had three brothers, but apparently no sisters. Of course, just because
Tehlirian swore under oath to have seen one dead brother, that didn't mean it was
true. (Two reasons:  Tehlirian was not present during his mother's relocation.
 Tehlirian was a liar.)
(Tehlirian hailed from Erzurum. Power tells us above that his hometown, Erzincan,
"was emptied." If emptied, then where did the Armenians come from in the
next couple of years to take control and perform such misdeeds as these? Here's a more
It is truly despicable that Samantha Power is offering the word of a lying Dashnak
terrorist and murderer, as her source. It's simply unbelievable that she would ask
us to take his word for his claims.
To our "human rights" champion, the murderous Tehlirian (whose portrait is
lovingly displayed in her book) is actually a hero. Evidently, Power approves of the
assassination. (She must have worshipped Charles Bronson from the "Death
Wish" films, and also identified with "Batman.") "National justice" is what our little
lawyer called it.
In the simulated photo above, Soghoman Tehlirian (left) shakes
hands with his "boss," the man who largely operated the Dashnaks'
hit squad, NEMESIS: Karekin "Armen Garo" Pastermadjian. Isn't it ironic
that Samantha Power assigned the role of poor, innocent victim to such
a ruthless and professional killer?
Tidbits on Tehlirian
"He was born on April 2, 1987. [sic]" That would be 1897. The Pulitzer Prize winning Power once again got
her facts wrong, by writing he was nineteen in 1915.
"His Armenian Protestant parents, Khacadoor and Hnazant, had given Tehlirian
three older brothers — Misak [sic?], Setrag, and Avedis." (Translation:
"By the time (Tehlirian graduated from high school in 'Erzinga'), his father and
uncles had followed their business interests to Serbia and established subsidiaries
there. His brothers Misak [sic?] and Setrag had joined their father, and Avedis was
studying mediciine in Beirut. Tehlirian, in 1913, went to Serbia to join his father
and brothers for a brief while..." (If they were running
these subsidiaries far from home in 1913, the odds are they did not come running back
to "Erzinga" — evidently the Armenian word for Erzincan — one short year
later, when the war began. These family members were not part of the caravan,
"His beloved mother, brother Avedis, and relatives in Erzinga were
destroyed." (There's the confirmation. We are
indirectly being told the father and two other brothers, the rest of his immediate
family, were not present.)
"He maneuvered his way into the infantry under the command of General Antranig,
And to his surprise here he discovered... his brother Missak, who had also answered
the call to battle." (This other Tehlirian traitor confirms
the family was not "wiped out.")
"With the victorious regiment, he entered the immortal Armenian city of Van, and
then went on to Bitlis and Moush. He participated in all the campaigns under
Antranig's command until the Russian defection from the war..." (We learn:  Tehlirian could not have been in Erzincan in 1915
because  Tehlirian was busy slaughtering defenseless Turks and that  the
murderer was a liar in the classic Dashnak tradition.)
He will enter 'Erzinga' serving as an irregular under the "incomparable guerilla
bands of Mourad of Sebastia," and others. This is when he "viewed the
remains of his home and town. "His mother, his brother, his relatives.... all had
been massacred." (A confirmation that Tehlirian was not
back in his home town until late in the war or after the war.)
Soghoman Tehlirian, Armenian Review, written by
Sarkis Atamian, Aut. Nov. 1960, pp. 40-41. The article was a four part series. In the
In Berlin, "When she [Miss Leola] asked him about his country and family. 'I have
no country,' Tehlirian replied." (From Part II, 1961, p. 14.) (A confirmation that some in his family were still alive; the sob
story about his family getting wiped out is totally bogus.)
The two members of his family who died, the mother and brother Avedis... how do we
know they were "massacred"?
Let's briefly mention that Author Sarkis Atamian was propagandistically out of
control, a man after Samantha Power's heart. Every Turk (and Armenians he designated
as traitors) is a "fiend." He tells us Tehlirian was a sweetheart because he
shot Talat only once, and did not keep pumping Talat's lifeless form with bullets, as
Atamian probably would have loved to do himself. (The standards for humanitarianism
among Dashnaks can be particularly bizarre. Here's another example, regarding Dro.) On p. 42 of the first chapter,
Atamian intructs us, "Without justice, no moral comprehension is possible, and
without morality, the human being is inconceivable," the idea of
"morality" in this case is when a vigilante acts as judge, jury and
executioner. Even if the victim only "appears" guilty without evidence, a
striking example being the entirely innocent Said Halim Pasha, another Nemesis victim.
So when Atamian writes, "His mother, his brother, his relatives... all had
been massacred... by the Turkish mobs, the soldiers and the gendarmerie" (p.
41), we know that would be good enough for Atamian's soul sister, Samantha Power. (You
can go back up to read Power's embellishments; we have learned
that Power's inventions or mindless faith in others' inventions, like Tehlirian being
present, the sisters being raped, and that one sister's body was "mangled"
have no basis in fact and it's horrifying that Power is perpetrating anti-Turkish
hatred based upon lies.)
But what about the brother's head being split open by an ax? Assuming axes were
standard issue for the gendarmes. In photos we have seen of gendarmes marching
alongside the convoys, we see them carrying rifles. Anyone see axes? Would it make
sense to carry heavy axes during a long march? (That is, among marches without ox
carts, carrying supplies.) Of course not. But axe-murders are particularly gruesome.
Whomever made up this part of the story obviously wanted to accentuate how
"unspeakable" the Turks are, and Power is happily repeating such ugly
hearsay in her bigoted book.
From the Armenian-translated trial testimony:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY — The defendant testified that the massacres took place just
outside the city limits of Erzinga. I am informed that, after the caravan had gone
quite a distance from Erzinga, armed Kurdish bandits attacked the caravan in a pass
and even many Turkish gendarmes were killed trying to protect the caravan. Would the
defendant please answer whether or not they were attacked by Kurdish bandits?
TEHLIRIAN — I was told that it was the Turkish gendarmes who opened fire on us.
Naturally, Tehlirian dumbly contradicted himself; since the basis of his perjury
rested upon his being physically present, he wouldn't need to have been
"told." But as we know, it's good enough for pro-Armenians to simply be
"told," no matter how unreliable the source. To pro-Armenians such as
Samantha Power, all she needs is to be "told" by unreliable sources such as
Julia Pascal and Tehlirian himself, because truth is to be regarded as leprosy, to the
The real point is this, ladies and gentlemen. We can't verify the D.A.'s information
either, but despite what omnipresent Armenian propaganda has brainwashed us with,
there were gendarmes who acted dutifully and with honor. Yes, there were lowlifes
among them, and yes, some were in cahoots with the Kurds and other bandits. But there
were some who lost their lives defending Armenians, which in itself runs contrary to
the idea of a planned "Final Solution." Since the D.A. was practically the
sole voice of reason in this despicable 1921 Berlin kangaroo court, his information
would be infinitely more reliable than the word of a Dashnak assassin and terrorist.
If Tehlirian's mother and brother were killed en route — and there's no proof of
that either, as they could have died the way most relocated Armenians lost their lives
after reaching their destinations, of famine/disease — the cause of death could well
have been at the hands of lawless bands overwhelming the Ottoman guards trying to
defend the Armenians. If that were the case, should not those as Samantha Power be
That concludes the brief excerpt from "A Problem From Hell" that
HarperCollins featured on their web site. If the book were to be analyzed in its
entirety (as her friend Balakian's "Tigris" book has been examined on TAT), no doubt this page
would have been considerably longer. But even for a "quickie," just about
everything Silly Samantha Power has written has nothing to do with historical
accuracy. The bigoted Power has completely utilized propagandistic sources, proving
herself to be quite the anti-scholar. A true scholar would have gone out of her
way to have analyzed as much pertinent data as possible, before arriving at
scientific, dispassionate conclusions. Note as example her Tehlirian reportage, from
above. She didn't even bother to consult the trial transcript nor anything about
Soghoman Tehlirian, that wasn't readily available through the easy resources of her
She actually couldn't have. Such a process would have gone against her mission. Her
mission was to arrive at the conclusion first, and then find the evidence to affirm
her conclusion... regardless of how tainted the evidence was. This is why Samantha
Power is no scholar, genocide or otherwise.
What is she then? Those who rely almost entirely upon propaganda cannot be called by
any other word, and we all know what that word is.
Power's Hell Problem, Part II
Samantha Power — Yet Another Armenian