Tall Armenian Tale


The Other Side of the Falsified Genocide


  War-time disinformation and "The Blue Book"  
First Page


Major Players
Links & Misc.



Mahmut Ozan
Edward Tashji
Sam Weems

(Some Information regarding Dr. Sonyel is at bottom.)

To read more on this topic, please visit
the very comprehensive and enlightening

"British Propaganda and the Turks."

Followed by

"The British Have to Apologize."

"Ara Sarafian Defends the Blue Book" (Addendum, 5-07)


Arnold Toynbee confessed in a later  work, The Western Question in Greece and Turkey (1922, p. 50), that the “Blue Book” was a piece of  war propaganda.


"The Foreign Offices issue so many falsehoods that they end by believing in them themselves — a case of auto-suggestion."

Foreign Affairs Magazine, Britain's "Journal of International Understanding," July 1920, p. 87. A marvelous explanation as to why Toynbee, despite being fully aware of the crock he was a part of while working for Wellington House, still affirmed the validity of an Armenian "genocide" toward the end of his years.


"The Great War and the Tragedy of Anatolia: Turks and Armenians in the Maelstrom of Major Powers"

by Selahi Sonyel

War-time disinformation and "The Blue Book"

The publication, in 1916, of the British war-time disinformation 'report' under the title THE TREATMENT OF ARMENIANS IN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE, 1915-1916, which came to be known as "The Blue Book", was masterminded by Arnold Toynbee, a member of the Masterman propaganda bureau in London, on the instigation of Viscount James Bryce. Lord Bryce had been inciting the Armenian militants to rebellion since the publication of his book entitled TRANSCAUCASIA AND ARARAT in 1877, in which he remarked: "Why ...do the Armenians not rise in rebellion...as their forefathers did against the Seleucids and the Persians?" (Bryce, p.344).

Following the revolt of Ottoman Armenians in 1914 - 1915, on the instigation by the Allies (mainly by Russia, France and Britain), in order to dismember the Ottoman state and the eruption of a civil war between the Armenians and the Turks, the British Intelligence and Information Services, some political and military advisers and Armenophile enthusiasts such as Lord Bryce, Arnold Toynbee, Aneurin Williams, and others, urged the British government to publicise the Turco-Armenian incidents such as "Armenian massacres." Internally, it was hoped that this would arouse, among the British public, more interest in "the little allies of the Entente" - the Armenians
as David Lloyd George described them, and hatred towards the Turks. Externally, it would divert international attention from the atrocious persecution of the Jews by Britain's ally, Russia, which had intensified during the war. It would also stimulate the neutral countries with pro-Entente tendencies, such as the USA, Greece and Hashemite Arabs, to join the fray.

Harold D. Laswell, in his well-known book entitled PROPAGANDA TECHNIQUES IN THE WORLD WAR, published in New York in 1927, observes that the Allies indulged in extensive propaganda (disinformation) during the First World War in order to establish friendly relations with neutral states, to convince those states of the justice of their war aims and to procure their support. The Allies knew that the best way to draw the neutrals to their side was by portraying their enemies as "inhuman creatures". (Laswell, pp.62, 66, 72, and 195-197). That is exactly what "The Blue Book" aimed to do.

The task of collecting the materials, mainly from Armenian sources, and of writing the "report", was undertaken by the well-known Turcophobe Viscount Bryce, and by Arnold Toynbee. On how the propaganda material was collected and masterfully utilised, see Arthur Ponsonby FALSEHOOD IN WARTIME, New York, 1928, and Michael Sanderson and Philip M. Taylor, BRITISH PROPAGANDA DURING THE FIRST WORLD WAR, 1914 - 1918, London, 1983.

Armenian researcher Akaby Nassibian observes that Aneurin Williams, his associates, and the British Foreign Office, were anxious to have the "report" published in order to stimulate the Allies' war effort. (Nassibian, BRITAIN AND THE ARMENIAN QUESTION, London, 1984.) "The Blue Book" turned out to be one of the most successful war-time propaganda exercises of the British government. It used it in inculcating hatred towards, and denigrating, its enemies — the Turks — at the time, before world opinion, particularly the Islamic world, in promises, and in effecting the major coup of finally winning over the wavering pro-Entente neutrals, in particular the USA.

Most of the material used in "The Blue Book" and in other similar publications was supplied to Lord Bryce by the U.S. Ambassador in Istanbul, Henry Morgenthau, who, not knowing Turkish, relied heavily on his Armenian aides. (See Heath W. Lowry, THE STORY BEHIND AMBASSADOR MORGENTHAU'S STORY, Istanbul, 1990). Bryce passed on the information to Toynbee, "the distinguished historian and member of Wellington House, who", according to Sanders and Taylor, "became something of a specialist in atrocity propaganda". (Sanders and Taylor, op.cit., p.145).

There is no doubt that "The Blue Book" was the result of collecting together various "documents" without having thoroughly checked their accuracy, and gathered mainly from Armenian sources, or from people sympathetic to the Armenians, i.e. from second or third-hand sources, mostly with the help of Morgenthau. It was issued as an official publication in order to give it more authenticity and credibility.

Salahi Sonyel

Dr. Salahi Sonyel ("Sari Gelin")

The work was completed in a short time, and definitely in less than a year. How authentic and reliable a work of "historical scholarship" it is, scholars themselves must judge. Toynbee himself, at first, considered it as "the biggest asset of His Majesty's Government to solve the Turkish problem in a radical manner, and to have it accepted by the public". (See Public Record Office, Foreign Office document FO 71/3404/162647, p.2). Much later Toynbee disclosed that the British government had published "The Blue Book" for a special purpose, of which he was unaware at the time. He said that the Russian armies, when retreating across the Polish-Lithuanian frontier in the spring of 1915, had committed many barbarities against the Jews there, and the advancing German armies had tried to exploit them. The British government had been seriously perturbed. In February 1916 THE NEW YORK AMERICAN had advised all American people to demand that "Christian England and Christian France restrain the savagery of their barbarous allies". (Toynbee, ACQUAINTANCES, pp.149 - 152, THE NEW YORK AMERICAN, 2.2.1916). Toynbee believed that the British government was worried lest the American Jewry retaliate against the Allies by throwing its weight against Britain in the debate then going on in the USA. Therefore the Turco-American incidents in Anatolia had provided the British government with "counter-propaganda" material against the Central powers. (Toynbee, ibid., pp.149 - 152).

Both Henry Herbert Asquith and Stanley Baldwin, in their joint memorial presented in 1924 to the then Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald, stated in no uncertain terms that "The Blue Book" was "widely used for Allied propaganda in 1916-17, and had an important influence upon American opinion and the ultimate decision of President Woodrow Wilson to enter the war". (See Mosa Anderson, NOEL BUXTON: A LIFE, London, 1952, pp.81 and 110; see also Bodleian Library, Toynbee Papers, box on Armenian Memorial", 26.9.1924).

Thus, "The Blue Book", as "masterpiece" of British wartime propaganda, had a devastating effect. Its wicked influence is still extant as the book is being abused by Armenian activists in perpetuating their hatred towards the Turks, and by certain naïve scholars. Its success lay in the fact that it was based on "atrocity" stories. British propaganda was geared towards such stories, real, exaggerated or even fabricated. (See Lucy Masterman, C.F.G.MASTERMAN, 1939, p.298); because disinformers could flog them to journalists and correspondents, who would then flash them under banner headlines in their journals. (see also Sidney Whitman, TURKISH MEMORIES, London 1914, pp.120-121). Arthur Ponsonby explains that "the injection of the poison of hatred into men's minds by means of falsehood is a greater evil in wartime than the actual loss of life, the defilement of the human soul is worse than the destruction of the human body". (Ponsonby, op.cit., p.18).

One of the most notorious "atrocity stories" of the entire war was the so-called "corpse-conversation factory", where the Germans were accused of boiling down bodies to make soap. The story was completely fabricated
it was finally exposed in 1925 when it was discussed in the House of Commons. (HANSARD, 5th Session, vol.188, 24.1.1925, pp.147-148). Most of the wartime "atrocity stories" were fabricated, or exaggerated tremendously; so was the myth of the "deliberate extermination of the Ottoman Armenians in 1915."

James Morgan Read observes: "Lying is an act of conscious deception. Much of British atrocity propaganda was unconscious deception built upon erroneous reports and impressions". (ATROCITY PROPAGANDA, 1914 - 19, Yale, 1941, p.187). It was the British government itself which, between 1914 and 1918 had demonstrated to the world the enormous power of propaganda, (Sanders and Taylor, p.265) a legacy which later propagandists followed suit.


What a great article by Professor Salahi Sonyel... what invaluable and impartial Western sources. (If a Western source vindicates Turks, you can be sure they are impartial... since Westerners have grown up with a negative image of Turks, and have no reason to be in love with Turks.) Many I have never heard of.

 Professor Salahi Sonyel was selected as the Turkish scholar to be examined by Gwynne Dyer, when he looked at both sides of the genocide coin in Turkish 'Falsifiers' and Armenian 'Deceivers'. If Dyer came up with any falsification by Sonyel, I couldn't see it.... his main gripe seemed to have been summarized in the following lines: "Sonyel's extreme partisan stance is more obtrusive in his use of language than of facts. His conclusion, though offensively phrased, is partly defensible at least in essence..." Then he turns his attention to the Armenians. You can read his work here.


'The British have to apologize'

 The Blue Book (edited)

Ret. Ambassador (Sukru) Elekdag: UK should apologize to Turkey about Armenian genocide claims

* Elekdag says Armenian genocide claims stemmed from the 'Blue Book,' published by the British in 1916, based on groundless and false documents. 'No other publication damaged our country to date as much as this book did'

* 'Accusing Turkey of carrying out genocide against the Armenians, this book encouraged terrorism and led to the death of numerous innocent people'

* 'It's a crime against humanity and a murder to poison the opinions of nations, turn them into foes and pave the way for hatred, malice and revenge to pass on to generations. In this respect, we expect the British Parliament and government to declare that the Blue Book is groundless and apologize to Turkey'

* 'The Turkish Parliament should deal with this case and pursue it to enable the British Parliament to declare the book groundless. Our government should present an official request to Britain'

* 'American historian professor Justin McCarthy found an incredible document in British archives a short while ago. This document put forth that the Armenian genocide claim was a great lie made up by the British Intelligence Organization's "War Propaganda Secret Bureau" based on groundless documents prepared during World War I'

* 'The Ottoman government never had a decision, plan or will to carry out systematic genocide against the Armenian nation or annihilate them'


Ayla Ganioglu

Turkish Daily News, 27 April 2003

The claim that the Armenians were subjected to genocide in 1915, in the last days of the Ottoman Empire, came to the agenda once again on April 24, which is marked in the West as "the anniversary of Armenian genocide."

The Armenian diaspora's efforts to enable those western parliaments to pass decisions condemning the genocide have never ended. The U.S. comes first among these countries. Retired Ambassador, Republican People's Party (CHP) Istanbul deputy and parliamentary foreign affairs committee member Sukru Elekdag told the TDN that the Russian, Canadian, Greek, Belgian, Italian Parliaments, European Council Parliamentarians' Assembly and the EU European Parliament passed resolutions recognizing Armenian genocide claims one after another in recent years. The legislative bodies of Argentina and Lebanon also took similar decisions. Armenian terrorist organization ASALA ceased its terrorist actions in 1984 after it massacred 42 Turks including 36 diplomats and their families. It killed five ambassadors, four consul generals and one military attache. Elekdag thinks that the terror incidents were the first phase of Armenian radicals' three-staged plan. He stresses that the Armenian problem was brought to the agenda with the terror incidents, while a strategy aiming to enable the world to recognize the Armenian genocide is being followed at the second stage. Elekdag says the Armenians will demand high compensation from Turkey in the third stage, which would in turn constitute the legal basis for Armenia's demands for land. Elekdag responded to TDN's questions as follows:

TDN: What do you think about the claims that the Armenians were subjected to genocide in the last period of the Ottoman Empire when you look at the issue objectively?

Elekdag: This incident, which has tried to be recognized as "genocide," is not related with this concept since the Ottoman government never had a decision, plan or will to carry out systematic genocide against the Armenian nation or annihilate them. It's not because of their ethnic roots or religious beliefs that certain parts of the Armenian nation was forced to migrate. The reasons behind the fact that the Armenians were subjected to "relocation" can be listed as follows: 1-They cooperated with the Russians who invaded Ottoman lands during the war, 2-They helped the enemy by forming voluntary troops, 3-They rebelled from time to time, 4-They arranged armed attacks against villages of the Muslim population, 5-They claimed the lives of soldiers defending the country on the war front. All these were experienced in a period when the Ottoman state was in a war of life or death. Relocation was a legitimate and legally right precaution in the framework of the right to protect the presence of the state in that period as the Armenians betrayed the state by cooperating with the enemy and arranged large-scale armed attacks which endangered the country's defense.

TDN: It's claimed that the Armenian incurred losses of lives during relocation...

Elekdag: It's true that the Armenians incurred losses during clashes and "relocation" in eastern Anatolia. However, we should not forget that the Armenian gangs, which revolted with the start of war in eastern Anatolia, massacred the Turkish and Muslim population as well. The feelings of hatred and revenge, which rose to a peak between the communities, and the government's failure to provide security in the war environment, were influential in the relocation. This situation led to serious flaws in the transport of convoys during relocation, which in turn hurt the Armenians. Lack of vehicles, fuel, food and medicine, bad weather conditions and epidemics such as typhus created severe harm to the Turks as well as the Armenians. In the light of these facts, it's unveiled that the claims that the Armenians were subjected to genocide are inaccurate.

TDN: What's the situation in legal terms?

Elekdag: The genocide concept is defined in the "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide", which went into effect in 1951: "Genocide is the act committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group." However, it's obvious that the Ottoman government never had such a plan to destroy the Armenians in whole or in part. Despite all their efforts in the past 88 years, the Armenians could never put forth a valid document proving such a will or plan. As a matter of fact, famous scientist and historian Bernard Lewis said in his article published in Le Monde in 1993: There's no valid proof that the Ottoman government had a plan aiming mass destruction against the Armenian nation. The Turks had legitimate reasons to resort to relocation since the Armenians were fighting against the Turks in alliance with Russia which invaded Ottoman lands. These facts refute the claims that the Armenians were subjected to genocide. The allied forces, which invaded the Ottoman Empire after the war, wanted to try the ruling Unity and Progress Party administrators because of the massacre against the Armenians but failed to find any documents to bring an accusation against the Malta exiles.

TDN: How did this event take place?

Elekdag: The British invasion administration in Istanbul arrested 144 Turks including ministers, politicians, governors and high-ranking officials and bureaucrats on allegations of massacre and various crimes depending on the reports of Armenian Patriarchate and exiled them to Malta. However, it's understood thereafter that these reports were just a propaganda tool and that they could not be used as evidence in the court. Upon this development, the British invasion administration in Istanbul inspected all state archives of the Ottoman Empire and carried out intense interrogations. Despite this, they could not find a single piece of evidence proving the massacre claims. The British applied to the American government in despair. America did not fight against the Ottoman Empire during World War I, thus sustaining its relations. The American diplomats and consulate officials in Turkey carefully followed the Armenian relocation and provided humanitarian aid to these relocated Armenians. There must have been records in the American archives if there had been a planned mass massacre against the Armenians. However, no document accusing the Turks of committing a massacre against the Armenians could be found in these archives. In this case, those exiled to Malta were acquitted and released, which in turn proved that the Armenian genocide claims were groundless.

TDN: How were claims of genocide kept on the agenda despite all these facts?

Elekdag: A short while ago, U.S. historian professor Justin McCarthy, found a document in the British archives. The document proves that the claims of Armenian genocide were made up of lies based on documents prepared during World War I, by the "War Propaganda Secret Bureau" under the British Intelligence Agency. This Propaganda Bureau had worked at Wellington House until the end of the war. When the war ended the British government had all documents burned and destroyed. However, the document found by McCarthy survived and was left in an archive box where nobody got hold of it. The Secret Propaganda Bureau was administered by Lord Bryce. The one who prepared the baseless documents for publishing was historian Arnold Toynbee who later became world famous.

----- False documents by the British and the Blue Book-----

TDN: What could be the reasons behind Britain preparing false documents?

Elekdag: The reason for Britain having these artificial documents prepared was to exploit the compassionate feelings of the American public towards Armenians and thus enable the U.S. to enter the war as quickly as possible. Another aim was to create grounds for an Armenian state to be established under the rule of Britain and France in Eastern Anotolia, following the expected fall of the Ottoman Empire. By taking the Armenians on their side, Britain and France were calculating to hinder Russia's strategy of reaching the Mediterranean by invading Ottoman lands. The artificial documents that I referred to earlier were compiled in a thick book titled "Treatment of Armenians during the Ottoman Empire, 1915-1916" published by the British Government in 1916 with the approval of the House of Commons and distributed worldwide. This publication, also known as "The Blue Book," introduces Turks to the world as people who are inhuman, open to all evil, bloodthirsty and whose feelings of dignity, conscience and mercy have been blunted.

TDN: What are the claims in "The Blue Book?"

Elekdag: The Blue Book puts forward that "relocation" is an ethnic destruction plan designed by the Ottoman government. It includes false reports and documents mentioning brutality, mass massacre and cruelty applied to Armenians under this plan. It is certain that The Blue Book had a strong effect on the war. Just so, with reference to the statements by the then British ministers, it is a fixed fact that The Blue Book was an initial factor in President Wilson's decision for America to enter the war. This abhorred book published in 1916 forms the bases of the Armenian genocide claims. No other publication in the history of the Turkish Republic has produced this much harm. Assuming The Blue Book reflecting the facts, tens of thousands of books and articles written on the Armenian genocide since 1916 enabled the slander and blackening campaign to continue against Turks. Despite its falsity being revealed, the Armenian propaganda institutions republished The Blue Book in England at the end of 2000 and introduced it to the media at a meeting where members of the House of Lords were also present. Remzi Gur, a businessman who felt uneasy of the situation, organized a dinner conference for 250 people hosted by Lord Ahmed in the premises of the British House of Lords building with the approval of our London Consulate. I myself and professor Nevzat Yalcintas (now a member of the Justice and Development Party), a dear friend of mine, attended this meeting where many members of the House of Lords and House of Commons together with representatives of the media were present and addressed the visitors.

TDN: What was your speech about?

Elekdag: I stated that it was now openly revealed that The Blue Book consist of false documents and in spite of this the British media still continuously referred to this book to accuse Turkey of genocide. Furthermore, I reminded that during the 1920 British invasion of Istanbul the British deported Turks whom they accused of Armenian genocide to Malta and upon no evidence, the defendants were released. I asked them, "The Blue Book was published in 1916. Why wasn't it referred to, to convict the people exiled to Malta?"

----- 'The British have to apologize' -----

TDN: Why do you think they didn't refer to the Blue Book? Even though it was based on false documents wasn't it possible in those times for them to use it?

Elekdag: The Blue Book couldn't have been used because it consisted of false and fabricated documents. Because according to the opinion of the prosecutor of the British Kingdom, the claims and documents in the Blue Book were too baseless and untrue to be accepted as evidence in the British Court. Today, without giving any to discussions it has been proved that there had been a slander and humiliation campaign organized against Turks 85 years ago during the war and with this aim the Blue Book — full of false documents  — had been published. Despite this, today the British media still refers to this book to accuse Turkey of genocide. The thesis, research and books written on the history of that period still takes quotes from the Blue Book.

Accusing Turkey of genocide, this book encouraged terror at one stage and caused the death of many innocent people. It still creates enemies among people and destroys peace and confidence. It is a crime of humanity and murder to poison opinions of nations and make  enemies of them, causing hatred and revenge that will continue for generations. For this reason we expect the British Parliament and the government to declare the baselessness of the Blue Book and to apologize to Turkey. I proposed this in that meeting.

During World War I, the British intelligence service published a book on Germans boiling their enemies to make soap, depending on the statements of dozens of witnesses and secretly taken photos, and made the world believe that this was the truth. When after the war it was revealed that these were lies, the British parliament accepted the truth in a statement they made in 1936 and apologized to Germany.

The Turkish Parliament should put forward this case and follow up the issue regarding the baselessness of the Blue Book published with the approval of the British parliament and its declaration. Our government should make official demands to Britain regarding the issue. A statement by the British parliament or the government making a statement on the issue will be a development to refute claims of Armenian genocide.

Ankara --- TDN Parliament Bureau



Thanks to turkisharmenians.cjb.net

Holdwater: Say, that's pretty interesting that the British apologized to the Germans, regarding their false Blue Book directed against the Germans. Will the British similarly apologize to the Turks? I'm not holding my breath... although that would be the gentlemanly thing to do, given the terrible harm this deceitful book has produced... and is still continuing to produce.

What WAS that important document Professor Justin McCarthy found in the British archives? I would love to know.

Ex-Ambassador to America Sukru Elekdag has done a great job over the years refuting the Falsified Genocide, sometimes entirely on his lonesome. A study by him refuting Turkish Turncoat Halil Berktay may be found here, and Dr. Dennis Papazian chose to do battle with an Elekdag letter that has been rebutted here.

Ara Sarafian Defends the Blue Book


"The Blue Book was compiled to a high academic standard."
Ara Sarafian

(From an interview in Virgul (Issue 95, May 2006), the full text of which may be accessed at armenews.com.)

OSMAN KOKER : If I remember right your name was first heard in Turkey in the year 1995 when your research at the Ottoman Archives was interrupted by the officials there. In the past few years your name is mentioned in connection with the “Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire 1915-1916”, known as the "Blue Book".

At the conference in the Istanbul University on 15-17 March you made a presentation about the Blue Book. Why did you choose the Blue Book as your topic ?

ARA SARAFIAN : I chose this subject because it is topical in Turkey, and because the Blue Book issue reflects the disturbing face of the official Turkish thesis on the Armenian Genocide. The whole case against the Blue Book, according to the official Turkish thesis, relies on deliberate misinformation about the subject. This is why I call many of my antagonists “denier” of the Armenian Genocide rather than people I disagree with.

O.K. : How was the Blue Book prepared ?

A.S. : The Blue Book was originally compiled as a report. We do not know how the decision was taken to request such a report, but certainly we do know that its compilers, Arnold Toynbee and James Bryce, acted in good faith when putting it together. We can make th[ese] assertions because we have Toynbee’s working papers from this period (including his correspondence with Bryce), as well as his later published works where he talks about the Blue Book and the Armenian Genocide.

O.K. : What are the criteria employed in deciding to include a witness account in the book ? Do you think these criteria are reliable ?

A.S. : The key criteria for the inclusion of reports in the Blue Book was that sources had to be authentic primary records (eye-witness accounts). Most of these reports were from a neutral United States, which had its consulates in the interior of the Ottoman Empire until April 1917. These consuls reported what they saw around them, and they also forwarded other reports written by Americans and non-Americans in these regions, such as the letters of American, German, or Swiss missionaries.

Given these source[s] of information, Toynbee and Bryce did not doubt the originality of these accounts from the Ottoman Empire, and they judged their value as primary sources on a record by record basis.

I think the criteria used by Toynbee and Bryce to gather and assess their materials were creditworthy under the circumstances. They even made provisions for possible errors creeping in by basing their case on the weight of all the evidence without relying on one or two documents. They also, for example, made sure that, the core narrative of events rested on the evidence of Americans, Germans and other foreigners, in case the “native evidence” (those from Armenian or Assyrian sources) may have overstated what they saw.

In fact, when they did so, they realised that the strongest reports were provided by non-Armenians, and that the “native evidence” merely provided additional information.

Sarafian was behind "The Uncensored Version of the Blue Book," put out by his Gomidas organization, which was briefly covered in TAT's "Arnold Toynbee and His Blue Books" page. By "uncensored," he means the identities of the anonymous Blue Book sources have been made available, through the use of Toynbee's "confidential key."

"We do not know how the decision was taken to request such a report," Sarafian tells us, but the answer couldn't be clearer; Lord Bryce headed a section of Wellington House, Britain's notorious propaganda division, whose purpose was to dehumanize the enemy. It certainly served the purpose of devout Christians Bryce and Toynbee to utilize any and all corrupt information to demonstrate Turks came from another planet. (Prof. McCarthy instructs: "What happened was the Propaganda Bureau asked Bryce for a propaganda volume, and said, 'We have this man Toynbee here who is pretty good. He can put it together for you.' And that is exactly what happened.")

And can you believe Sarafian's assertion that Bryce and Toynbee acted in "good faith"? If they had acted in good faith, they would have considered all relevant information, not simply the propagandistic variety. But of course, they were beholden to present exclusively the propagandistic view, because they were working for their Majesty's propaganda division, and Toynbee could not have been clearer when he dismissed his work in later years as "war propaganda."

When Toynbee wrote in 1919 that "The treatment of Armenians by the Turks is the biggest asset of his Majesty’s Government, to solve the Turkish problem in a radical manner, and to have it accepted by the public," we can see his intentions had nothing to do with "good faith." Now, as good Christians, no doubt neither Bryce and Toynbee preferred to lie outright, but their dirty propagandistic job left them with little choice. Stuck, it is only natural to assume they had to believe in the veracity of the word of Armenians and missionaries (or as you read the marvelous explanation above, "The Foreign Offices issue so many falsehoods that they end by believing in them themselves — a case of auto-suggestion.")
Ara Sarafian

Ara Sarafian

Note Sarafian's pathetic explanation that the sources needed to be "authentic ... eye-witness accounts." If anyone saw anything firsthand (most of these were secondhand reports, or even third and fourth-hand), they saw suffering. Every Ottoman was suffering; suffering is not genocide. And then to try and classify the American consuls and missionaries as "neutral." Can you believe it? America, awash with anti-Turkish propaganda, had probably the most hostile attitude against Turks than any other Western nation. The interpreters of these "neutral" sources were almost exclusively Armenians, who felt no compunction about telling them whatever would best serve Hai Tahd, or the Armenian Cause. (One example.) The consuls had a "Terrible Turk" imprinting to begin with, and accepted whatever their Armenian assistants told them at face value. The missionaries felt it their Godly duty to vilify the heathen Turks, and to protect their beloved Christian Armenians at every turn. Naturally, the corrupt reports of these "non-Armenians" were going to support the  dishonest claims of the Armenians.

Sarafian goes on to say more in this interview, including lambasting those such as Kamuran Gurun and Sukru Elekdag (perhaps Sarafian can answer Elekdag's question from the interview directly above: "
The Blue Book was published in 1916. Why wasn't it referred to, to convict the people exiled to Malta?"), and he says, "Most people in Turkey know about Morgenthau because of Heath Lowry’s booklet which misrepresents Morgenthau’s reports and diaries and castigating the American ambassador as some sort of an Armenian puppet. Heath Lowry’s assessment of Morgenthau is wrong." No one says Morgenthau was an Armenian puppet. He was a headstrong racist who accepted wholesale the word of his Armenian assistants. What Lowry's research proved, utilizing the words of Morgenthau himself, is that Morgenthau was a liar, in the production of his own propagandistic "Ambassador's Morgenthau's Story." There was absolutely no misrepresentation in Lowry's research (how could reproducing Morgenthau's own words, without distortion, be classified as "misrepresentation"?) Sarafian also wraps up by declaring he "accepted Dr. Halacoglu’s offer (to conduct joint research) in good faith." Later events demonstrated Sarafian used the expression "good faith" in the same manner as he attributed to Bryce and Toynbee.

Ara Sarafian should be dreadfully ashamed for justifying these awful lies, but (not that it is an excuse) he too is "stuck." His career is based entirely upon perpetuating the lie of his genocide. Maybe he has come to even believe in what he is saying, another case of "auto-suggestion." (Here, by the way, is a wonderful example of how such "auto-suggestion" permeated the belief system of "neutral" Americans from the period.)


"West" Accounts


Armenian Views
Geno. Scholars


Turks in Movies
Turks in TV


This Site