Tall Armenian Tale


The Other Side of the Falsified Genocide


  Admiral Bristol in the Press  
First Page


Major Players
Links & Misc.



Mahmut Ozan
Edward Tashji
Sam Weems

 Here is a look at some of the articles that appeared in the American press, regarding Admiral Mark Bristol. Note the respect and reverence that was deservedly shown; Americans were aware that Bristol possessed that rare "tact and courage," as the first article put it, as well as integrity, to be fair to all sides and to get the job done, during a time and in a part of the world where the situation was extremely difficult.

Admiral Bristol was a great American who served his country in the best possible way. He refused to be pushed around by special interest groups.

The second article offers a look at how an Armenian from the period tried to smear the admiral (as a "pro-Turk"; simply because Bristol had the rare humanity to look at Turkish people as fellow human beings), but Americans didn't buy it. By this time, many Americans were becoming aware of the deception and the propaganda of the Armenians.

What a pity that years later, with the growing juggernaut of the Armenian genocide propaganda industry, Bristol would be referred to almost exclusively as an unsavory character, with all sorts of ridiculous accusations in the familiar Armenian style. We can expect Armenian-Americans like Richard Hovannisian to smear Admiral Bristol, because such "colonists" (a word used by Hovannisian) may be counted on to put Armenian interests over the interests of their adopted countries, and don't care about the great service Bristol performed for America (for example, making sure to not treat the Turks unfairly, which could have have forced them into the Soviet bloc — significantly affecting the balance of power during the coming Cold War years). But it's particularly sad when the Armenians' allies, the unscrupulous genocide scholars (such as this fellow), echo the same, smearing sentiments; one would think the Americans among them would recognize the great service Bristol performed for their nation, and would not allow the Armenian "mischief-makers" (as the second article nicely put it) to slander him.



1) U. S. Force Small In New War Zone

2) Armenian Agitators

U. S. Force Small In New War Zone

Danville Bee, Sept. 21, 1922

U. S. Force Small In New War Zone

Five Thousand Americans to Rely Mainly on Diplomacy --Seven Destroyers to Protect Property.

CONSTANTINOPLE. Sept 21.—Diplomacy. rather than force, is America's chief dependency in the boiling Turkish situation.

Five thousand Americans in the new war zone depend for protection on the small naval force under command Ot Rear Admiral Mark L Bristol— and upon Bristol's diplomacy in his capacity of American high commissioner to Turkey,

Admiral Bristol, alone of the foreign representative here, has the full confidence of the Turkish authorities.

Meanwhile there has been much distrust among British, French and Italians in this region. For a long time they were at loggerheads, Individuals and cliques playing secret games, politically commercially and financially.

Whispers of violations of neutrality have been heard from time to time. America's position has been strong, for she is regarded as the only power which wants no special favors.

Uncle sam's [sic] naval forces in European waters are at a minimum. Only one battleship—the Utah—is in European waters and she is far away at Cherbourg. Seven destroyers, one station ship and two little submarine chasers constitute the total naval force of this government within reaching distance of the scene of the trouble.

No Force to Protect Property

These vessels carry no landing force of marines to protect property A Small force of marines stationed as a consular guard at Constantinople and Smyrna is the extent of American land forces.

In addition to the lives of more than 5,000 Americans, much valuable American property is endangered by the present uprising.

Among the interests Uncle Sam must safeguard is the welfare of the representatives of the American Relief Administration, the Near East Relief, Roberts College, Constantinople College, the American Girls' College, Red Cross, American Foreign Trade Corporation, Shipping Board, Standard Oil Co., American Tobacco Co., and the Guarantee Trust Co., which has a branch there, and many others.

Communication Speeded Up

By a system of communication set up by the navy shortly following the armistice, Washington is enabled to communicate with Constantinople with a minimum of delay. Three hours is an outside time for a message to get through. Under good conditions, transmission is practically direct.

Messages coming to Constantinople are wirelessed from the navy radio station at Washington to the navy radio in Paris. There the message is relayed by leased navy wires to Viena [sic] via Coblenz. From Vienna the message goes again by radio to a station established in Constantinople by the American navy.



WASHINGTON, Sept 21—Will a holy war echo through the world as a sequel to the Turkish-Grecian fighting in Asia Minor?


This question is troubling: official Washington, as well as the extent to which America may be involved.

America's share in it lies in the hands of Rear Admiral Mark L Bristol. He occupies the double position of American high commissioner to Turkey and commander of the American fleet of destroyers in near-east waters.

That official Washington places unusual trust in Admiral Bristol as a combination fighter and diplomat was shown by the state department's recent insistence that navy plans for transferring him to sea duty be abandoned.

Naval officials here, who have seen service with Bristol in Constantinople say only his remarkable tact and courage have enforced recognition of American rights and interests in the new war zone. Bristol has been at his near-east post since Jan.28. 1919.

"The situation in Constantinople has been a delicate one for more than three years." declares an officer who was aide to Bristol during the early part of his Constantinople service.

Where Powers Seek to Override Us

British, French and Italian representatives because of the fact that each of these countries maintained an army of occupation at the Grand Porte, have sought to override American representation and American interests. There has also been constant friction and trouble among the forces of each of these three allies.

"Bristol, however, through his tact and his personal popularity, has been able not only to force recognition of his official precedence as dean of the high commission to Turkey and of American claims, but to smooth out differences between the forces of occupation themselves and also between these forces and the Turkish government.

"Perhaps the most serious threat of trouble for the United States—and which also indicates the undercurrent of hostility among former allied forces in Constantinople—came when an American bluejacket was bayoneted by an Italian sentry. An open break almost followed that.

Bristol's Service Varied

Bristol probably has seen as varied service as any officer in the navy. He is a native of New Jersey and graduated from Annapolis In 1887, at the age of 19. At 54. he has served on all classes of ships in all the principle stations of the world. He was on the battle ship Texas at Santiago, was commander of the North Carolina In conveying troops to Europe and was commanding officer of the Oklahoma, in Uncle Sam's battleship division in European waters, in the latter part of 1918.

Mrs Bristol, whom he married in 1908 was Miss Helen Beverly Moore of Mobile. Ala.





Reno Evening Gazette, Sept. 25, 1922


THE TROUBLE over citizenship questions in the Near East is coming to a head sooner than was expected. The Gazette last week drew attention to the subject in this column and spoke of the misuse of citizenship papers in the Levant. Now comes forward one Topakyan who makes an unwarranted attack in a letter to the New York Sun on Admiral Bristol, high commissioner of the United States in the Eastern Mediterranean. Topakyan declares that the admiral is pro-Turkish and anti-Armenian. This means only that Admiral Bristol, as an American citizen by birth and training, refused to have his actions dictated to him by Armenian mischief-makers.

The Armenians have been the cause of trouble in Asia Minor and throughout the Levant for many years-not the honest, God-fearing peasants of Anatolia nor the enterprising merchants and brokers of the ports, be it understood, but the Armenian professional agitators. These men would hesitate at nothing. They never have. Long before the European war came the attempted assassination of Narbuk at Lausanne, it may be remembered, and some twenty years ago, to show how the Armenians of the United States--ninety-nine hundredths of whom sought this country because here they hoped to get away from the Old World quarrels--became involved, it is only necessary to recall the slaying of a Gregorian priest in New York City. The Hunchakists kept the police of several countries on the watch continually.

The Hunchakists may have disbanded, but the men who belonged to the organization are still very much alive, at their old work yet, and obviously seeking to start another war in their own interest. Let them keep in the background. Admiral Bristol has the confidence of the American people.


See also:

Admiral Mark Bristol

The Exchange Between Admiral Bristol and Doctor Barton

A Register of Mark Bristol's Papers in the Library of Congress


"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.