Tall Armenian Tale


The Other Side of the Falsified Genocide


  A British MP's Fair Look at Turkey and the EU  
First Page


Major Players
Links & Misc.



Mahmut Ozan
Edward Tashji
Sam Weems

The following article appeared in the U.K.'s Telegraph on May 3, 2007.


Damned if They Do, Damned if They Don't

Damned if they do, damned if they don't

By Dan Hannan

The poor Turks are damned either way. If they ban the symbols of Muslim devotion, they’re fascists; if they allow them, they’re fundamentalists.

William Gladstone

William Gladstone

Once again, we see Europe’s politicians determined, in Gladstone’s unhappy phrase, “to turn the Turk, bag and baggage, out of Europe.”

They will seize on any development — even an abstruse row about the presidential nominee’s wife’s headscarf — as an excuse to defer Turkey’s application for EU membership.

One day we are told that Ankara needs to do more for its Kurds, the next that it is being obstreperous over Cyprus, the next that it should grovel about the 1915 Armenian massacres.

Not all these objections are baseless, but it is striking to see how differently Turkey is being treated from other members. No one asks the Belgians to face up to what they did in the Congo, or the French to apologise for Algeria.

Ankara is especially aggrieved about Cyprus, and with reason: Turkish Cypriots voted to accept the EU’s reunification deal, but have since been isolated; Greek Cypriots voted to reject it, but have been embraced.

Some Turkosceptic arguments are plain silly. Last month, MEPs hectored Ankara about getting more women into politics — this despite the fact that Turkey elected its first female head of government 14 years ago, while 18 out of the 27 EU members have never been led by a woman.

The trouble is that Brussels won’t come clean about its real objection which is, quite simply, that there are too many Turks.

Under the reheated EU constitution, voting weights are to be determined by population. Turkey is already larger than every state except Germany; and, while Europe is shrinking, Turkey is teeming.

EU leaders are determined not to hand the leadership of their Continent to an assertive, patriotic Muslim nation: they know it would mean an end to Euro-federalism.

Dan Hannan

Dan Hannan

France and Austria have promised referendums on Turkish accession and, since opinion polls suggest “No” votes of 70 and 80 per cent respectively, that would seem to be that. But no one wants to say so.

And so the charade continues, with EU leaders crossing their fingers behind their backs and canting about eventual membership, while reformist Turks pretend to believe them so as to be able to carry out a measure of domestic liberalisation under the guise of preparing for membership. It would have been one thing to say “No” at the outset.

How much worse to string Turks along for perhaps another ten years, imposing humiliating foreign policy climbdowns on them, making them restructure their legal system, forcing 10,000 pages of EU rules on them and then — then — flicking two fingers at them.

The EU risks creating the thing it purports to fear: a snarling, alienated Muslim population on its doorstep.

Turks have traditionally been our strongest allies in the region.

They guarded Europe’s flank for 90 years, first against Bolshevism and now against Islamism. They deserve better than this.




"West" Accounts


Armenian Views


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.