Tall Armenian Tale


The Other Side of the Falsified Genocide


  An Interview with Prof. Turkayya Ataov  
First Page


Major Players
Links & Misc.



Mahmut Ozan
Edward Tashji
Sam Weems

   I am deeply grateful to the amazing efforts of Prof. Turkayya Ataov. Before the pro-Armenian genocide juggernaut succeeded with their intimidation tactics and frightened opposing academicians from this debate... by such underhanded tactics as taking them to court and subjecting their reputations to smear campaigns, Professor Ataov was active in exposing the many fabrications and falsifications of the Armenians... which the reader can get an idea of in TATís forgeries page. (See link at page bottom.)

Prof. Ataov appears to have been keeping a comparatively low profile in recent years (that has been my impression, anyway), but he paid a visit to New York in early 2005. I wish to thank those involved with conducting this interview, and I made use of the opportunity to suggest a few of the technical questions Iím glad to see had been asked.

Itís obvious Prof. Ataov comes across as a wholly charming and wonderful man, reeking of integrity. Itís important to get an idea of his personality, because we get a different impression from the naturally scholarly tone of the many works he has contributed. Naturally, the ethics-challenged propaganda machinery, who hates for you to consider the real facts Prof. Ataov and those like him present, are quick to degrade their character in whatever ways they can.

For example, Harut Sassounian, publisher/journalist of a Californian Armenian newspaper, is on record for calling Prof. Ataov a "charlatan," when the real charlatan is a historian (or journalist, for that matter) who exclusively presents one side of a story. Prof. Ataov has also been accused of being an agent of the ďsinisterĒ Turkish government, and thereís nothing new there. Prof. Justin McCarthy is similarly accused, without ó as usual ó any proof. (Sassounian, among so many other agenda-ridden agents, has also called McCarthy a ďcharlatan,Ē unmindful of the libel laws in our nation. But, as Kapriel S. Papazian told us in ďPatriotism Perverted,Ē fanatical Armenians have a way of throwing ďPrudence... to the winds,Ē as they did when they betrayed their Ottoman nation during WWI. [Prof. Ataov analyzed Papazianís book, and excerpts may be read here.] A response by Prof. McCarthy on attacks upon his character may be read if you
[click here]

To get an idea of Prof. Ataovís impressive credentials, here is a biography I came across on the Internet:

Professor Turkkaya Ataov is Professor Emeritus of International Relations, at Ankara University, Turkey, where he has taught, researched and published for over four decades. He conducted his graduate studies in the United States, earning an M.A. in International Relations from Syracuse University, M.A. in Economics from NYU, and Ph.D. in Political Science from Maxwell Graduate School Syracuse University. Professor Ataov has published over one hundred books and a few hundred scholarly articles in over 20 languages. Most recently, he published Kashmir and Neighbours (UK, Ashgate, 2001), Discrimination and Conflict (Geneva, Eaford, 2001), and The Armenians in the Late Ottoman Period (Ankara, Turkish Historical Society, 2002). Professor Ataov received presidential medals from Italy, Federal Yugoslavia, and Hungary, as well as medals of honor from the Macedonian Historical Research Center, Russian Academy of Sciences, Bophuthatswana University (South Africa), and the Turkish Grand National Assembly.

My gratitude once again to those involved with the preparation of this interview and the photographs, a TAT exclusive. Certain underlined statements may be clicked on to hear the professorís words, in his own endearing voice!


The Interview

TAT: Professor Ataov, what has been keeping you busy of late?

ATAOV: I started studying and publishing about the modern issue of Armenian-Turkish relations in our history beginning with the early 1980s so it must be now more than 25 years; but Iíve not been idle before that nor after that. Iím generally known by different groups of people all over by different nations. For example in the eyes of the Arabs, Iíve published about Palestine, in terms of quantity, perhaps more than any other person in the world. Iíve spent some time studying about the minorities in the Balkans; and I have taken up since 1976, together with a number of friends, connected with the United Nations, the struggle against apartheid in South Africa. I was the only Turk, together with my wife, to be invited by Nelson Mandela during the change of the regime.

The reason why I had to (consider undertaking) Armenian-Turkish relations was that two Turkish diplomats were assassinated in 1973.

TAT: You mean you didnít study the genocide issue before that?

ATAOV: I didnít study it before that, no. (Sometimes the Turks have been criticized; their) official circles pretended such a thing did not exist at all. This is not the case; the reason why the founding fathers of the republic did not analyze and teach, educate the people is because they wanted to rear new generations that looked to the future and not the past.

TAT: The impression is that they were trying to sweep crimes under the rug.

ATAOV: This is the wrong interpretation; they knew what had happened. They also knew many Turks had been killed by these events. Of course, one cannot be sure of the exact number. But thereís also another small point that is connected. We have, as Turks, gone through very difficult times, especially during the 19th century. In the Balkans, the Crimea, and also the Caucasus, and theyíve been subjected to extermination. The whole thing amounts to about 11 million people, most of them Turks, adversely affected by these events. There are still very few Turks in Macedonia, parts of small enclaves of the former Yugoslavia, but this is only a small fraction of what had existed since 1820. There was a radical change beginning with the Greek war in 1821. There was an ethnic cleansing of the Turks in the Balkans..

TAT: Why doesnít the world care about...

ATAOV: The world doesnít know it, doesnít care about it. Of course, there is enough material not only in our archives, but that of other countries. And we know that history cannot be explained, understood and taught without proper references. Now we knew that from our own experience. Perhaps the leading Western scholar has written a very good scholarly book about this, Professor Justin McCarthy, and itís called ďDeath and Exile The century beginning in 1821 and ending 1922, was the darkest century in our history.

There is a long list of people, most of whom belonged to one or the other of the Turkic peoples. But some of them were not even Turks, as with the Albanians. So if somebody, after the establishment of the Turkish republic in 1923, if some people had said that certain things had occurred during the first world war, let us discuss this, then more, many more people would have said, before that, let us discuss the genocide and the forceful expulsion from our ancient lands. This should be the number one agenda that we should discuss. But this would have created a new generation of revengists...

TAT:  What?

ATAOV: In other words, a new generation of people who wanted to take revenge, reprisals, of what had already happened to themselves, their previous generations and so on. Some of these people remembered that they had been living somewhere else before. They could have demanded to discuss this before discussing any other. Because what is involved is the death of more than 5 million people, or close to 5.5 million people, and the forceful expulsion of another five-and-a-half-million, together making eleven million, which is, I think more than any other figure connected to the idea of a genocide.

We were forced to bring this up now, because so much injustice is being done to us. If we had to remember something, this would have been the first thing for us to remember.

 Prof. Turkkaya Ataov


TAT: Professor Ataov, you taught at Ankara University for how many years?

ATAOV: Close to forty-one years.

TAT: What connection has the Turkish government had with your teaching?

ATAOV: None.

TAT: We are told that you are a spokesman for the Turkish government.

ATAOV: Well, Iím presenting a second point of view; I think there is nothing wrong with that. Just to pretend that only an entrenched point of view can be true is scientifically incorrect. The (commonly accepted) interpretation of the history of our relations with the Armenians is wrong in a number of ways ó let me add, it is full of a number of lies. There is a lack of proper references, certain facts, documentation even signed by prominent Armenians such as Boghos Nubar Pasha. We have certain documents in our hands. We have the works, published books of Armen Garo (or Pastermadjian), who was one of the generals of an army of 150,000; of General Antranik, and a number of other people such as Hagopian, and so on, connected with the armed revolts of the Armenians. Not only books, but a series of articles. In spite of this, these facts, admissions and confessions, sometimes you run into the works, suppositions of certain other Armenians, saying that theyíve absolutely done nothing. I would call that a lie, or at least a contradiction... a terrible contradiction.

TAT: How ironic you would say that, because you are perceived as the lawyer for the criminal; you know that your client committed murder. So why should we believe you, is what they argue.

ATAOV: There is a misconception ó a terrible misconception ó as if the Turks can only be victimizers, but never victims. This is wrong. Thatís a prejudice, a biased approach; entrenched psychologically, anthropologically, it cannot be correct. Historically, it cannot be correct. Itís one of the ironies of the situation, that one party is always right and the other party is wrong.

Lloyd George

Lloyd George

For example, at the end of the first world war, Lloyd George said the Turk (has not contributed to civilization, having not produced) any literary person, any artists worth mentioning, and should go back to where he came from, the Arabian deserts. Now this sentence is full of errors (and shows the personís ignorance). Lloyd George could have very well read six volumes of his compatriot, Professor (E. J. W.) Gibb  Gibb has produced wonderful, scholarly treatises on Turkish literature. Architect Sinan is a typical renaissance man; he created not only (a number of) mosques and (musjids, smaller mosques), some churches ó Iíve seen one, a small church near Sofia; bridges over the Danube Saray. He was a genius. Yunus Emre, a man born as a poet, just like William Shakespeare was. (Another example or two are cited.)

To them, such people did not exist.




Vahakn Dadrian

TAT: Does Vahakn Dadrian really believe there was an Armenian genocide?

ATAOV: Well Dadrian does, and a number of other people also do, but they donít know enough about the other side of the coin; itís very important....

TAT: But he must have studied everything; he really got into it.

ATAOV: Well, if he has studied everything, then he has to state everything. Itís not enough to study it, you have to be able to reflect those things. For instance, number one, we did not take any territory from an Armenian state. We didnít fight against them. We didnít disperse them in Anatolia or the Caucasus. They were dispersed long before we came. We had very good relations, brotherly relations, friendly relations, peaceful coexistence with the Armenians, for more than 800 years. These are also important facts. They should mention such for a systematic and balanced analysis.

When we came into contact with them, we were the first ones to recognize the Armenian Gregorian community as a distinct, Christian group of people. And they had not gained that kind of recognition from any Christian church, whether Catholic or Orthodox. Because the Armenian Gregorian church was monotheized, and different from the interpretation of the other churches. According to the Islamic notion of (millet), they could pursue their religious convictions in any way they liked, that the central government would not interfere with them, that they could speak their own language, and that they could live and work the way they wanted to, and they could hold public office.

TAT: You will find many Armenian historians saying quite the reverse of that, so let me ask you: do you know of any Armenian historian who recognizes these factors?

ATAOV: I didnít read them, of course I read what the Armenians write. For instance, I donít remember Dadrian ever mentioning that there were so many Armenian-Ottoman ambassadors, lieutenant governors, diplomats, consuls, members of parliament, many in the professional businesses, and moreover, just one year before the outbreak of the first world war, that is, in the year 1913, the Ottoman Minister of Foreign Affairs was an Armenian, Gabriel Nouradungian.

Now there is the drive to equate the Jewish Holocaust with Turkish relations with the Armenians. Can you imagine the Nazi regime, for instance, appointing a Jew to the position of the minister of foreign affairs? Thatís impossible. This is not a coincidence. The Armenians lived and worked and flourished, got educated with the consent and the wish of the Turkish people as well.

Prof. Turkkaya Ataov


TAT: But what I find interesting is that there are a number of Turkish scholars who go with the Armenian point of view, and yet I have yet to come across one contemporary Armenian historian who gives credence to any of the things you are saying. Why is this?

ATAOV: Well, Iíve published a lot about this issue. There is no mention in any of the Armenian publications. I take this to mean that they cannot find anything to criticize. Otherwise, they would have done this. And Iíve asked them to criticize, if they can. If they can find, for instance, a falsification of some sort. I have found so many falsifications in Armenian writings, and Iíve exposed them.* [See TAT's
Forgeries page, for example]

There are so many misconceptions, so many omissions, and moreover, it looks as if only the Armenians have suffered. Of course, war itself is cruelty no matter where it occurs. Now we are also living through war right now, in the course of our conversation. There are some people who are killing others, and some people being killed by others, right now. This is a cruel thing. But you can also see even today that the losses of one of the parties is not mentioned, but the losses of the others are mentioned. And the losses of those that are mentioned are much less than the others.

There are such things in the latest chapter of Armenian-Turkish relations, as well. It looked as if the Turks did not suffer anything, but they made others suffer. This is not correct. There was a revolt in Van, which was the farthest province of the Ottoman Empire (and still is of the Republic of Turkey) and there was an armed revolt there. There are confessions of that in various Armenian publications. And if this has happened, then itís not a matter of 10 or 15 people shooting with revolvers in their hands. Cannons were used, machine guns were used; and even if you look up Prof. Hovannisianís book, ďArmenia on the Road to Independence,Ē he says there was, in the Caucasus for instance, an Armenian army of 150,000 soldiers. Plus, he says, in the same sentence, there were guerilla fighters and so on. Now this figure is much more than the American soldiers right now employed in Iraq.

In other words, the central administration in Turkey was facing an armed revolt, supported by weapons, money, diplomatic support and so on by the approaching, invading and expanding Tsarist Russian armies. Headed, in the eastern front, by General (Loris) Melikoff, who was himself an Armenian-Russian.

If you look up French documents which are available, and which I have printed in some of my publications, the responsible people say, yes. Among our adversaries, we were fighting against the French as well, and their generals say yes, there was a revolt in the east, and the Turks were right in relocating them. [For example]

Rafael de Nogales

Rafael de Nogales

TAT: The Venezuelan adventurer, Rafael de Nogales, said there was no Van revolt; the Armenians were self-defending.

ATAOV: No, there was a revolt. If you look up Katchaznouni for instance, he said....

TAT: I believe it; but why would de Nogales have said that? (Holdwater note: the questioner was mistaken; de Nogales documented the uprising: " ...the Armenians of the vilayet of Van rose en masse...")

ATAOV: Well, I donít know. Maybe he didnít read Katchaznouniís book. Because Katchaznouni, who happens to be the first prime minister of the Independent Republic of Armenia, in the 1920s, when he made that talk in Bucharest, in 1923, addressing the delegates of the Dashnak party. He said, the Armenians had started mobilizing and resorting to force even in the fall of 1914.

TAT: He was talking about the Armenians of Transcaucasia, though.

ATAOV: Yes, he was... No, both sides.

TAT: Well, the Armenians say it was only the Russian-Armenians.

ATAOV: No, in both sides; they were...

TAT: I know that. But thatís what the Armenians say...



TAT: ...Dadrian also says ordinary Turks participated en masse in the killings. What do you think about that?

ATAOV: Ordinary Turks?

TAT: En masse. Not just a few, but...

ATAOV: No, this cannot...

TAT:  ... a whole bunch.

ATAOV: This cannot be dare said. It never happened, even it didnít happen... Well, did all Americans en masse participate in the killing of the original inhabitants of the United States? No. They didnít, even not here. And not every German participated in what happened during the Nazi period. Iím not comparing, actually, the Turkish situation with any of these countries. There was a Holocaust, a genocide in Germany. There was no action, no development, that fits into the description that you find in the 1948 genocide convention. Some people, of course, attacked some of the columns and some people were killed; but they were a small fraction. Iím not minimizing by quoting a much smaller number; death is death, there is no doubt about that. But there were also deaths on the other side. Not only in 1915, but in the 1896 events and even before that. There was a British source, a certain Captain Norman, who was sent to investigate the events of 1895-96, and he prepared a report called ďThe Armenians Unmasked,Ē and I have a copy of this report that is in his own handwriting.

There he says, for instance, in the little town of Birecik which is in Urfa, the southeastern part of Turkey, The London Times wrote that 2,000 Armenians were killed there. Now if I remember the figure correctly right now, about 718 people or so lived in Biricik at that time, so 2,000 could not be killed.

TAT: I believe the Armenians have claimed Captain Norman as working in public relations for the British, and was biased.

ATAOV: Well, they may make any interpretation that they like, but I am persuaded by what he wrote and what he signed. He came here and observed certain things, and he quotes facts and figures. He also said the ambassadorís council was formed, they investigated the issue, and found only five lives were lost, or something like that. Usually, the alternative figure is very low; whatever the second figure is, itís much lower ó dramatically much lower ó than something that had happened, printed in The London Times. This is the point. Itís always an exaggeration; always a tremendous exaggeration. This has to be recognized.

TAT: The Armenians also say the 235 Armenian leaders who were arrested in Istanbul on April 24 were all killed on the same day. What happened to those Armenians?

Louise Nalbandian

Louise Nalbandian

ATAOV: Well, I have no particular information on (their fate), frankly. They were rounded up not because they were Armenians, but because they had connections with what was going on in the east. And there is enough evidence in the Armenian publications saying that, even earlier than that ó for instance, Louise Nalbandian wrote there was a coordination with what was going on in the east, and the Armenian intellectuals living in Istanbul. Now, the Ottoman police, just like any other security agency, may have made certain mistakes insofar as some of the individuals were concerned. Usually, the Ottoman police was well informed, and (the Armenians) were rounded up because they had certain connections with them; they gave the ideas and the way of thinking...


 TAT: Dadrian tells us that Behaeddin Shakir went door-to-door, in his car, town to town, relaying secret orders. What do you think about that?

ATAOV: Well, itís very difficult to do that. For instance, as Iíve heard, in one of the universities, a terribly biased professor said, one million Armenians were killed. Itís not easy to do that. I mean, the way you say it, it takes a few seconds to say it. But to do that is very difficult.

I appeared as a witness of authority in two Paris trials (1984-85); the first one concerned an attack on the Turkish consul-general in Paris, the killing of a Turk, and the wounding of another. The second one was the bomb blast at Orly airport, which killed some people and wounded about 60. I was asked to participate by the Paris court, as a person who knows this subject. I was surprised to see in one of the daily papers called ďLa Liberation,Ē a certain Veronique Brocard, whom I met and talked to afterwards, published in one year three articles about the trials, and also about the issue, and in those three articles, she kept adding five hundred thousand Armenians dead. And I drew her attention to that, I produced these articles signed by her, one page long all of them. One states that the Turks killed one million, and the other one one-and-a-half-million, and the other one, close to two million.**

In other words, she kept asking, with tremendous ease, and with no sense of responsibility, five hundred thousand in each case. And I asked her, is it fair for you to do that? What documentation do you have? Can you produce anything that would convince me, or any other person? Of course, if I wrote to you, which I tried to do, that this is false, and that I have a different interpretation and a different opinion about these events, you declined to print it. In that particular case I called up the publisher, couldnít find him, left word, and was promised he would call me back, which he didnít, in Paris. And then I inquired to the possibility of talking to the proprietor of that paper, and tried to tell him this is what the people working in the paper were doing, that this was not fair reporting, they were misleading the public, and that they were not telling them the truth. He said he would inquire and would phone me back, and never phoned me back. And then I tried to also talk to this lady, and she gave me an appointment which she didnít keep, and I spent another few days in Paris because she didnít show up. And when I visited Paris much later, I had a chance to talk to her.

But one of the things I said to her was that, I came to know she was single and not married, but perhaps if she gets married and has a kid in the future, well, that kid reads these articles, she might in the future be startled to see her kidís mother added five hundred thousand to the list of the dead. Wouldnít that boy or girl ask the mother, how could you do that? Itís such an irresponsible attitude.

We are confronted with this, unfortunately. So much propaganda is involved in this. So much propaganda was also involved in the so-called British Blue Book, for instance.

 Prof. Turkkaya Ataov


TAT: Dadrian always manages to come up with sources, where someone says there were Turkish Mengeles, and that Armenian children were poisoned...

ATAOV: None of that is true, no. Now there is an effort to draw artificial parallels between the Jewish Holocaust, and our relations. That is not only an exaggeration, itís an outright lie. Since (the Holocaust) is well established, they want to enter certain museums, the minds of people, on the coattails of what happened to the Jews. This is very unfair, not only against the Jews, but also against the Turks. Or vice versa; not only very unfair against the Turks, but also against the Jews.

They passed through the Holocaust; there is a thing called anti-Semitism that is not necessarily limited to the Nazi regime; it goes back centuries, to letís say the year 38 AD, in Alexandria, the Jews were slaughtered during the Roman Empire. All the way from that, there is anti-Semitism simmering. Nothing of that sort can be said about the Ottoman or Turkish attitude, or the Muslim attitude toward the Armenians.

TAT: Dadrian also tells us a CUP representative went to prisons, accompanied by a doctor, and they made sure to select criminals when they recruited gendarmes.

ATAOV: Well, I donít know how they know that...

TAT: Probably the 1919 trials.

ATAOV: Well, you cannot be sure of that. There were missionaries in Turkey (since the 1830s?) and they created such an understanding in the minds of the Armenians that the Turks were Muslims, and they can do such things. The origins of these go back to the biased interpretations of the missionaries. They bear responsibility for the bloodshed that occurred afterwards, because they gave the Armenians a sense of superiority, just because they are Christians. And also because they had certain ďEuropeanĒ racial characteristics that put them above the Muslims, and especially the Turks, and so on. Now this is sort of an ďeducation,Ē in quotation marks.

The way they compare Talat Pasha, for instance, with Himmler: nothing of the sort. He was the person who allowed American missionaries to help Armenian children; feed them, clothe them and educate them, in 1915-16. Although Turkey and the United States were not fighting against each other were nevertheless in the opposing camps of the war.*** Just let me know of another government that has been so lenient; this action of the minister of interior, in a sense, saved the lives of tens of thousands of Armenian children dying from starvation. Not killing, but starvation, because there wasnít enough food to go around. When Turks died. And these people, the missionaries, did not help the Turks the way they helped the Armenians, of course. And we have photographs printed in the books written by Armenians, showing them properly clothed, healthy, in the schools and churches set up by those Protestant missionaries. Educated with the money that was collected by using the Turks for having slaughtered and so forth. Itís really a comedy, and a drama at the same time.

This comparison, for example you read a book written by an Armenian, this Ottoman official was actually like the Nazi so-and-so. Itís a drive, a motivation, a tactic, to equate the two events. They cannot be compared in any way. You feel this bloodshed (of the Jews happening in France, in Germany, in Russia, in Poland) and such things happened over and over again. But the Turks did not have that kind of a mentality, that kind of an approach, that kind of a relationship, neither with the Jews, nor with the Armenians, nor with the Greeks.

Now as far as the Armenians are concerned, there has been some bloodshed, but because they revolted in the east, by arms. The Americans brought the Japanese together, and none of them had ever resorted to force against their own government. This cannot be said, this should not be said, about the behavior of the Armenians.

Not every Armenian may have been a part of that, but enough had been a part of that; there is no doubt about that. There were battalions formed, there are even references in the Armenian sources to even bigger military formations with cannons, and machine guns, and so on. They were in the war. They published books with this title: ďWe won the war for the allies.Ē These are not the exact words, but it means that; I can look it up in some of my research works, published matter where I give verbatim titles in the footnotes. (Holdwater: Similar Examples.)

Georges Clemenceau

Georges Clemenceau 

There was an acknowledgment coming from Lloyd George, Clemenceau, and a number of people who were on the winning side. Why did the Russian Czar Nicholas II send a message of thanks and congratulations to the Armenian people? Thank you very much for the support you are giving us, on both sides of the border, he says. And so did the Russian governor of the Caucasus, expecting the support of Armenians on both sides of the border, throughout the war. This is what happened. How can we pretend that these things do not exist?


 TAT: Any parting words on how you believe this debate may be resolved?

ATAOV: The Turks and the Armenians are two able people who lived together for centuries. Let us not try to make them even more enemies of each other. We have no prejudice against them.

They revolted with arms, they attacked the Muslim quarters in the city of Van, they took over that part of the province, they assisted the invading Tsarist armies, and the central government resolved to make a decision to relocate them. Not all Armenians were relocated, transferred, anyway. The Protestant Armenians were excepted; the Catholic Armenians were excepted; the Armenians serving in the army were excepted; the Armenians serving in the banks were excepted; the Armenians serving in the tobacco factories were excepted; the Armenians working in certain areas like railroad construction, and so on, they were excepted. Moreover, together with their families; if one man was excepted, that meant his wife, children, and other relatives were also excepted. And this is the absolute truth.

And they were not sent outside the country; they were not forced to leave, in a sense. They were not kicked out of the frontiers of the state. They were sent to the southern parts, and with the first decision of the central government was that this order of relocation should not be understood as an order of killing them. And any attempt in this regard will be punished very severely, and so on. And, moreover, the Turks who set up the trials and convicted some of the people, and hanged some of the people.

But no such trials ever took place, convicting any Armenians, or any Russians, which have caused the bloodshed, or at least the beginning of the bloodshed, to begin with. No such things were ever done. And if you look at some of the publications, books written by the Armenians, they are proud that they have killed certain Turks. This is the impression that you get. In other words, you can kill one party, but not the other. There is such a distinction from the very beginning.

   A Few Holdwater Thoughts


* "Iíve asked them to criticize, if they can. If they can find, for instance, a falsification of some sort.Ē The professor is approaching the matter as a gentleman, and his kind heart has put to the side the lack of ethics genocide-obsessed pro-Armenians are capable of. It is the very duty of these pro-Armenians to criticize, to discredit, to perform their smoke-and-mirror tricks. There is no end to the way in which they can come up with explanations to cloud and confuse, as Vahakn Dadrian has magnificently attempted in this rebutted paper.

** Itís far from uncommon for pro-Armenians to irresponsibly play with figures, as the figures suit them ó taking as their role model the Armenian Patriarch, who claimed 3 million as the Ottoman-Armenian population during the Berlin Conference, quickly revising to 1,780,000. Here is how fast Peter Balakian has changed his mind with Armenian mortality figures, just like the unethical French reporter.

Prof. Roger Smith

Prof. Roger Smith 

*** Dr. Roger Smith, in an April 2005 genocide conference at Fordham University presented by Dr. Ani Kalayjian, provided as reason for the Turkish magnanimity (in their allowance of a hostile nationís representatives to care for Armenians, a practice that had been going on to a lesser extent from generations past, with access granted the missionaries): the Ottoman Empire wished to prevent the USA from entering the war against the Turks. The Fuehrer was well aware the USA's entry in W.W.II would amount to a death blow... if only Adolf "Who Remembers the Extermination of the Armenians" Hitler had remembered this simple trick, and allowed for Americans to care for the Jews in Auschwitz! There can be no shortage of speculation among agenda-ridden genocide agents; the only factor they donít consider is the truth.


Some of Dr. Turkayya Ataov's Essays are Featured on these TAT Pages:


The Andonian "Documents" Attributed to Talat Pasha Are Forgeries! 

The 1923 Manifesto of Hovhannes Katchaznouni

British Officer Captain C. B. Norman Unmasks the Armenians

British Author C.F. Dixon-Johnson's "The Armenians," 1916 

Armenian Forgeries and Falsifications

Armenian Terrorist  Groups ("Patriotism Perverted," end)






"West" Accounts


Armenian Views
Geno. Scholars


Turks in Movies
Turks in TV


This Site