Tall Armenian Tale


The Other Side of the Falsified Genocide


  Turkish POW Treatment by the British  
First Page


Major Players
Links & Misc.



Mahmut Ozan
Edward Tashji
Sam Weems

Katran Kazaninda Sterilize book cover

"Katran Kazaninda

We often hear how badly British POWs were treated by the Turks. (Sometimes we even hear how well they were treated in Gallipoli.)  But how were Turkish POWs treated by the Brits?

The source of the following article is a 2004 book (pictured at right and available here) that is not known to me. But if the story is accurate, it's pretty amazing going, folks. Nothing the Turks could have done to the British POWs could possibly compare with this.

For the original article, in Turkish, click here.

Another look at this chapter (in Turkish) may be found on this page.

With great thanks to the translation of Ms. Damla Ozdemir. (A few translation notes follow.) Thanks also to reader M. Niyazi Odyalmaz, who brought this story to my attention.

Turkish POWs, 1917
These Turkish POWs surrendered to Lt.-General Stanley Maude, after
the capture of Baghdad in March 1917. Perhaps some of these very men
were among the victims in the story you will read.

Dispersed Armenians defamation campaigns are spreading with full speed.

However, there is no reaction but a few weak objections from the accused (1) Turkish Republic Government.

Yet we have such important documents

For example, I don稚 think most of us know the things I am going to tell in this article. From the book 適atran Kazanında Sterilize ("Sterilized in Tar Cauldron") by Imge Publications, written by Ahmet Duru who revealed the diary of the sub-lieutenant (2) Ahmet Altinay from Karaman

In WWI, 150 thousand of our soldiers were captured by the British. And some of these soldiers were imprisoned in Seydibesir Useray-i Harbiye Camp (3) near the city of Alexandria in Egypt. The full name of the camp was 鉄eydibesir Kuveysna Osmanli Useray-i Harbiye (4) Kampi. In this camp, the Ottoman soldiers of 16th Division痴 48th Regiment who were captured at the Palestine fronts in 1918 were interned. For two years until June 12th, 1920, they were subjected to any kind of torture, oppression, heavy insults and humiliation.

The reason for this inhumane treatment was the Armenians.

The British commanders of the camp, because of the wrong, mendacious translations and provocations of Armenian translators who knew Turkish, had become fierce Turk enemies.


The war was over. Nevertheless, to release the soldiers besides the ones who died because of heavy conditions in the camp was not to the benefit of the British. Because the British were brainwashed by Armenians, being told that in a potential new war they could come up against these soldiers again. The solution was massacre

Our soldiers, forced by bayonets, were put in disinfection pools with the excuse of wiping out germs. But the chemical, krizol, was added a lot more than normal in the water. Even just when they put their feet, our soldiers got scalded. However, the British troops didn稚 let them get out of the pool by threatening with rifles (5).

Our soldiers didn稚 want to put their heads under the water that reached waist level. But then the British started shooting in the air. Our soldiers knelt and put their heads under water not to die.

But the ones who got their heads out of the water couldn稚 see any more. Because the eyes were burnedThe resistance of our soldiers who saw what happened to the ones that got out was no use and our 15 thousand men got blinded.


This savagery was discussed in May 25th, 1921, in the Turkish Great National Assembly. The congressmen Mr. Faik and Mr. Seref proposed that 15 thousand sons of this country were blinded in Egypt by being put in the 徒rizol pool; and wanted the Assembly to make an attempt for punishment of the British physicians, commanders and soldiers who were guilty of this act.

Of course the newly founded government had a thousand other problems. Demanding an explanation for this act was easily forgotten.

But they don稚 forget. They show even their own betrayal as a fact of genocide and present it to the world.

The most regrettable of all is that some people, you know who, are also behind, supporting these defamation campaigns.

Sinan AYGUN The President of ATO

(1) 鉄aldırının muhatabı, when translated, could be something like 鍍he offended of the offender. 鄭ccused may be an alternative that doesn稚 change the meaning critically.

(2) 添edek subay is not used in English-speaking countries. 鉄ub-lieutenant or 3rd lieutenant may come close.

(3) 填seray: unknown.

(4) 適uveysna unknown as well.

(5) 泥ip輅k darbeleri has no exact English equivalent. Basically it means that they were threatened with rifles; not exactly, though.

Arshag K. Schmavonian

Arshag Schmavonian:
Morgenthau's man

The reliability of the Armenian accounts that reached the diplomatic corps was further weakened by their need to be translated by interpreters, who almost always were Armenians. The American consul in Beirut, Mr. Hollis, who served there from 1911 to 1917, complained in a report rendered after he had left Turkey about the inordinate and inappropriate influence of the Armenian dragoman at the American embassy in Constantinople, Mr. Schmavonian. Hollis felt that he "did not always have the American point of view." This situation was not unique. Armenian functionaries in Constantinople, the American official wrote, "no matter for what Government they worked had a reputation throughout the Near East of being extremely slippery and much given to intrigue." Their loyalty to the government they served was not to be taken for granted, he noted, and this opinion was shared by his German colleague in Beirut.

Guenter Lewy, The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide, 2005. Hollis to the Secretary of State, Feb. 2, 1920, NA, RG 59, 867.00/1115 (M353, roll 8, fr. 585.)

Pretty horrifying! Harold Armstrong had pointed to an evil Ottoman POW camp commander in his book, but I don't think the demon he pointed to could have concocted anything as barbaric. (Ahmet Altinay, the credited author of "Katran Kazaninda
was actually the counterpart of Armstrong, a prisoner who spent three years in British POW camps. It was his memoirs or diaries that were evidently edited to shape the book.)

Unfortunately, because too many Armenians, in their misguided zeal for "patriotism," throw their sense of ethics out the window and incorporate the unscrupulously Dashank "end justifies the means" manner of operating. Because the better educated Armenians usually served as the "dragomen," or translators, in the Ottoman Empire, imagine the stories they told to Westerners they served, such as Ambassador Henry Morgenthau and Consul Leslie Davis (both of whom employed Armenians), further deepening the Westerners' anti-Turkish prejudices.

An honorable Armenian woman who hated the crimes committed by her own brethren was dressed in Turkish attire while the Harbord Commission came to town. She caught the Armenian translators' dishonesty (the American-Armenian among them instructed the rest to do their translations as they pleased, which pretty sums up their M.O.), and Harbord made the woman a part of his entourage, as a result. (Harbord still prepared his report as a friend of the Armenians, but no doubt his eyes were opened at least a little.)

Yet, returning to the POW story, it matters not how much hatred the Armenian translators instilled in the British guards and other personnel. The decision to perform this horrendous cruelty rests with the British.





"West" Accounts


Armenian Views
Geno. Scholars


Turks in Movies
Turks in TV


This Site

...Is to expose the mythological 鄭rmenian genocide, from the years 1915-16. A wartime tragedy involving the losses of so many has been turned into a politicized story of 兎xclusive 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 堵enocide 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 電eniers 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痴 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 典urcophiles by the propagandists. The sad thing is, even those who don稚 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.