Balakian also relates the story of Aurora Mardiganian, who arrived in the U.S. as a 16-year-old in Nov. 1917. An Armenian family took her in and placed ads in search of her surviving brother; these ads caught the eye of journalists, eventually publishing her story. A 24-year-old screenwriter (Harvey Gates) and wife soon became Aurora's legal guardians and thus RAVISHED ARMENIA was born... first as a book. Aurora's Armenian guardian, Nora Waln, "verified her truth of Aurora's story." (Oh? Was Nora an eyewitness, all the way from America?)

Click for detail

The movie was produced by Col. William Selig, and directed by Oscar Apfel, and starred Irving Cummings and Anna Q. Nilsson. When Aurora saw actors with red fezzes, "she fell into terror." Breaking down in the middle of the scene, she said, "I thought they were going to give me to the Turks to finish my life." Balakian helpfully adds, "Today we would call Aurora's response post-traumatic shock." Film critic Anthony Slide wrote, much to Balakian's delight, the book and film were "relatively sanitized versions of what (she) actually suffered and witnessed." That would be Anthony Slide, film critic and part-time historian.

Balakian then relates a most horrendous atrocity story which he hopes the reader will accept as fact. Most readers will, of course, which is what Balakian is counting on. And why shouldn't they? It came from the mouth of a teen-aged girl, who endured and witnessed "torture, mass rapes, the crucifixion of women (through their vaginas, if you must know; kind of the way "Vlad the Impaler" killed Turks), the sale of women into slavery and harems (harems?), and the notorious 'game of swords'"... who proved much tougher than the beastly Turks by somehow surviving and appearing in a Hollywood movie just a few years later.

The editor of Variety, Sime Silverman, wrote the movie should not be taken as "a truthful representation" (at last! An independent thinker who refuses to go along with obvious propaganda...); no, Sime then wrote what the Turks did was much worse (uh-oh), and "If RAVISHED ARMENIA in time may be given credit for the removal of Turkey from the map of the world, it will have helped in part to avenge Armenia and to have been of immeasurable benefit to civilization." (Whew! For a moment there, I was worried that old Slime… that is, Sime… might have actually gone overboard.)

When Aurora was paraded around the nation as a kind of "Joan of Arc of Armenia" freak show, she threatened suicide (hey! Even the Turks did not succeed in getting her to do that)... and Gates then sent her to a convent school and hired Aurora look-alikes. Aurora sued Gates for the seven thousand he owed her (did she receive it? If you're going to tell the story, follow through), married an Armenian-American in 1929 after getting over her sexual violence trauma from the "death marches" (is it right to call such as "death marches," when there were so many survivors?), and lived until 1994.

Henry Morgenthau, by then “National Vice-Chairman of Near East Relief” (the Near East folks were behind the making of the movie), appeared in the film as himself. While Mr. Balakian lists half a dozen other actors who appeared in the film within his footnotes, for some reason he left out Morgenthau's participation. Too hokey an activity for Balakian’s megalomaniacal hero?

As President Wilson was preparing to leave for Paris in 1918, Ambassador Morgenthau's Story was released to "wide critical acclaim," probably doing far more propagandistic damage than the foolish film ever would.

Before leaving for the Paris Peace Conference, Wilson gave short "Four Minute" speeches regarding the starving children of the Near East. Does not a true Christian recognize suffering of all humanity, regardless of religious belief or race? What about the starving Muslim children? I suppose Wilson's preacher father didn't read his Bible very carefully.... and neither did Woodrow Wilson.

Armin Theophil Wegner, Armenian-obsessed by this point, wrote Wilson (in a Feb. 23, 1919 open letter published in Tageblatt in Berlin) that the Armenians were a "highly civilized nation" (which they went on to prove by attacking neighbors Azerbaijan and Georgia, as well as provoking Turkey into war, and later in 1992, ethnically cleansing many defenseless Azerbaijani citizens and forcing close to a million people out of their homes); Wegner expressed his desire that the Armenian districts of Russia should be "joined with the Armenian provinces of Anatolia and Cilicia to form one common country entirely liberated from Turkish rule." But, Armin! If the millions of Turks who lived in those regions were to be placed under such Armenian control, today there would have been practically *zero* Muslims living in those regions... just as is the case with Armenia today, which once had a Muslim majority not too long ago. Armin, when you profess to care for humanity, why would you do so selectively?

Admiral Bristol expressed this sentiment well, in his letter to James Barton: “I am not disgusted with the Armenians, and I pity them; but I cannot believe in the idea of the establishment of an independent Armenia in a country where not 25% of the people are Armenians. I do not believe the Armenians are able to govern themselves, and especially should not be allowed to govern other people; and certainly, if any of the other races here in this part of the country are under the Armenians, they are going to be submitted to oppression and outrage.”

Putting aside that the misgoverning Armenians were almost relieved when they gave up the country to the Soviet Union in late 1920, given the deplorable state of Armenia today, Bristol was right on the money regarding the Armenians’ ability to govern themselves.

 Peter Balakian misrepresents facts further by claiming the Armenians “fought valiantly.” According to American eyewitnesses, the cowardly Armenians hid “in the Near East Relief orphanages and hospitals with the children.” (Edward Fox, Commander of the Near East Relief group in Kars, Bristol Papers) Again, Mr. Balakian’s nose grows by claiming the Armenian army was “underequipped.” “The Turks were very badly clothed and.... were far inferior to the Armenians,” is what Edward Fox reported… confirming Katchaznouni’s assertion that his “army was well fed and well armed and [clothed].”

Peternocchio goes on to shamefully write, just as he has been throughout his entire exercise in deceit: “What ensued was another Turkish massacre of innocent Armenian civilians, women, and children, and then the pillaging, looting and raping. In the end, six thousand Armenians were killed.” Edward Fox: “There were no massacres except certain Armenians were killed and this was reported to be for crimes committed."

(The Near East Relief Americans whom Fox led were charged with providing care for several thousand Armenian war orphans in the city…. they were anything but “pro-Turkish.”)

In the words of Admiral Bristol, George T. White, of the near East Relief Committee, had the following to say in regard to claims that the Turkish forces had massacred Armenians in the city:

"… Mr. White stated that he did not know of any massacres and did not believe there had been any, except in the case of two villages where some Turkish officers had been killed by the Armenians and in retaliation the Turks had wiped out these villages... “

Had there been similarly truthful American eyewitnesses in Van and other areas in 1915, you can be sure we would have accurate accounts as to what truly happened to the Turks/Muslims in these areas, at the hands of the bloodthirsty Armenians. There is documentation by non-Turkish eyewitnesses, as with Rafael de Nogales (Four Years Beneath the Crescent, 1926; a book made available by Gomidas, an Armenian organization... since the author reported enough damning events regarding the Turks), describing 1915 events: "Garo Pasdermichan, passed over with almost all the Armenian troops and officers of the Third Army to the Russians; to return with them soon after, burning hamlets and mercilessly putting to the knife all of the peaceful Mussulman villagers that fell into their hands." "When the Armenians of the vilayet of Van rose en masse against our expeditionary army in Persia; thus giving rise to bloody and terrible occurrences..."

Major E. W. C. Noel of the British Army toured through “the area occupied and devastated by the Russian Army and the Christian army of revenge accompanying them, during the spring and summer of 1916,” reporting: “Russians acting on the instigation and advice of Armenians who accompanied them murdered and butchered indiscriminately any Muslim member of the civil population who fell into their hands. A traveler through the Rowanduz and Nell districts would find widespread wholesale evidence of outrageous crimes are committed by Christians on Muslims." (Borian II, pg. 82)

Admiral Bristol wrote in his March 28, 1921 letter to missionary James Barton: “As long ago as last July I reported officially to the Department that there were strong Bolshevik feelings amongst the Armenians and that many of the Army officers were Bolshevik in sentiment. I stated then it was only a question of time when Armenia would go Bolshevik. Armenia did turn Bolshevik and was not compelled to do so by the Russians.” In his 1923 manifesto, Hovhannes Katchaznouni concurred: “The Bolsheviks entered Armenia without meeting any resistance. This was the decision of our Party… It was our desire to let the Bolsheviks rule the country without any obstruction, to remain loyal to the new government, to cooperate with their useful work.”

Balakian, however, tries to give the impression the Armenians fought hard against the Russians until they had no choice for the following reason: “The Armenians… realized that it was better to join the Soviet Union than to be decimated for good by the Turks.” No, the Armenians betrayed the West and reneged on the $50 million loan given in good faith by the United States in 1919, simply because it served their selfish interests. If the Turks had wanted to "decimate" the Armenians, what was to stop them after their soldiers refused to fight, and they were thoroughly defeated? Someone ought to inform Mr. Balakian that a historian does not editorialize; a true historian is only interested in presenting the unbiased facts.

A very small group, the “Leftist Dashnags” did oppose the Bolsheviks, and they staged a counter-revolt against the Soviets on February 18, 1921, according to Hovhannes Katchaznouni. As a result, Simon Vratzian, the last Prime Minister, contacted Bahaeddin Bey, Turkey’s representative in Erevan, on March 18, 1921:

“Please forward the present request promptly to your high authorities... The Armenian Government requests the Government of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, that... it... give the Armenian army some ammunition... [and] communicate with us, if the Government of the Grand National Assembly finds it possible to send military aid to Armenia, and if able to do so, to what extent and when ?... “

How ironic Armenia would turn to the one country for help that the dishonest “historian” wrote would ultimately “decimate” them. (Let us keep in mind the above serves as another major hole in genocidal theory. Imagining Nazi Germany had survived in a weaker state after WWII, and imaginng a created Israel appealing for help against stronger Arab neighbors, can anyone imagine Israel pleading for Nazi Germany to give assistance?) Since Armenia turned independent again, the only decimation that has taken place has been on the part of the Armenians, against the Turkic Azerbaijanis. (An aggression that was actually rewarded by the U.S. Congress, thanks to Armenia’s powerful lobby.)

 In Chapter 25, Balakian covers the 1919 Ottoman kangaroo courts that offered no due process, their purpose was recrimination, and the defendants said anything and everything to save their own necks.

The author makes the interesting claim that there were “almost a million” British soldiers stationed throughout the Ottoman Empire after the Armistice (in November 1918). Funny, Dr. Dennis Papazian wrote in his “Misplaced Credulity”: “Some partisans may attempt to dismiss the Turkish war crimes trials as biased because they were held while the British occupied Constantinople. In fact, this allegation of the influence of a British occupation is not entirely true since the trials began before the British sent troops into the city.”

(How fascinating that Dennis Papazian would use the word "partisan" in a way that indicates he is so neutral and fair-minded.)

There is a big contradiction there, and this serves as quite a pickle; which deceitful Armenian “historian” to believe? I believe in this case, Mr. Balakian’s story makes more sense.

Balakian goes to lengths to explain the word “deport” was in fact, code for “to destroy.” Some of the Turks confessed they were involved in massacres, but we already know that was the case. During the war, in fact, at least twenty Turks were executed for crimes against the Armenians, along with others punished in less severe ways. That was DURING the war. (Where the total of those accused of committing crimes against the Armenians and brought to trial was a mind-bogglingly high 1,397. [Gurun, "The Armenian File."] To repeat, this was DURING the war.) With the 1919 kangaroo courts politically aimed at those who brought the Ottoman Empire into such a disastrous war, many individuals were sentenced to varying degrees of punishment for offenses ranging from violations of military order (such as leaving a post without permission) to failing to properly carry out the order under which the Ottoman Armenians of eastern Anatolia were relocated. Sixty-two officials were sentenced to death (According to "An Unjust Trial") and executed (Balakian claims only three were executed; I cannot say for sure that he is wrong, however the fact that he wrongly claimed 6,000 Armenians were massacred in Kars, above, is still very fresh in my mind); six CUP members were tried in absentia and four were sentenced to death. (Sentences carried out in the case of some by Armenians [as members of the A.R.F. assassination squad, Nemesis], one of the rare times they loyally obeyed Ottoman orders.)

Nothing presented here ties in the central government to an extermination policy; it would require a great jump for an officer to construe “to destroy” if an order read “deport.” (And probably the word used was “relocate” or “resettle,” not “deport”… which means banishment outside a country’s borders.)

It sounds like Mr. Balakian is attempting to make no distinction between the 1919 Ottoman kangaroo courts, and the Malta Tribunal. (He slyly blends them both together within two paragraphs on pg. 344, going from the end of 1919 to 1921. What did he think the British were doing for over a year in between?) These were two separate proceedings, and the latter came about mainly because the British suspected the questionable standards of what were, after all, kangaroo courts; Britain not only desired, but some in the administration probably felt an obligation to live up to the mountain of wartime accusations built to the fever pitch level... that Wellington House exposed their public to; the British wanted to make sure to be in charge of their own “Nuremberg.”

(Interestingly, however, based on new discoveries in the British archives, Lloyd George actually considered buying the Ottomans -- via Enver Pasha -- out of the war, for a sum of $25 million. [Keith Hamilton Historian, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Caillard to Zaharoff, 30 Aug 1918] That carries the implication of a pardon for any alleged war crimes. That goes to show how even the hateful British leader was serious in regards to the punishment threats his nation was making.)

Balakian tells us: By the end of 1919, British forces were reduced from a million to “only” 320,000, and thus the British commitment “continued to wane.” Based on British archives, however, the investigation was still going strong. As late as July 13, 1921, the British were so desperate to dig up legitimate evidence, they contacted their own embassy in Washington, where part of the (by now familiar) reply came as follows:

I regret to inform your Lordship that there was nothing therein which could be used as evidence against the Turks who are being detained for trial in Malta. The reports seen made mention of only two names of the Turkish officials in question—those of Sabit bey and Suleyman Faik Pasha — and even in these cases the accounts given were confined to the personal opinions of the writers; no concrete facts being given which could constitute satisfactory incriminating evidence.

British Archives: PRO—F. 0. 371/
6504/E.8515 R.C. Craigie, British
Charge d’Affairs at Washington, to
Lord Curzon, Telegram No 722 of
July 13, 1921

Balakian inflates the importance of “forty two incriminating documents” referred to as “the Key Indictment” (one is a cipher telegram from Dr. Behaeddin Shakir, which Balakian spotlights; it is one I have examined in “Three Professors Attempt to Smear Heath Lowry,” as “Genocidal Proof?” and it miserably fails to hold up under analysis. If any of these were so “powerful,” what would have been the point of Lord Curzon to search as far and wide as to the archives in America… by July 1921? Everything was already at hand to convict the Malta Turks with these documents of “the Key Indictment.” Obviously, the British must have significantly disagreed with Mr Balakian (and Vahakn Dadrian, cited in this chapter), as to the legitimacy of these documents.

The author suggests Winston Churchill freed the Malta prisoners “in exchange for the British prisoners the Turks were holding.” In reality, the British were fast becoming aware that they had naively given into propaganda, basically accepting information from the Armenian Patriarch. On July 19, 1920, Churchill submitted to his Cabinet a secret memorandum which partly stated, ”It seems to me that this list (of Turkish prisoners) should be carefully revised by the Attorney General, and that those men against whom no proceedings are contemplated should be released at the first convenient opportunity." By March 16, 1921, it was the embarrassed British who offered to exchange the deportees of Malta (held by then for an unreasonable twenty months) for the British prisoners of war. Yet, the British still continued to keep searching, until finally the case had to be dropped… not from “wartime fatigue” (imagine releasing the Nazi prisoners at Nuremberg for such a reason: “Herr Goering, you are forgiven, and free to go. We are tired, and prefer to put the war behind us.”), but because there simply was no evidence. By the end of October, 1921, the last of the prisoners were released.

In “About the Author,” we can learn Mr. Balakian was “the first Director of Colgate’s Center for Ethics and World Socities.”

Peter Balakian has as much to do with “Ethics” as Albert Schweitzer can be accepted as a fraternal twin of Idi Amin Dada. Hold on to your seats, now…

Peter Balakian loses all hints of ANY credibility when he brings up the trial of Soghoman Tehlirian by the end of the chapter, and claims the Andonian forgeries of the Talat Pasha telegrams were submitted in the trial. Tehlirian's "Dream Team" of Berlin's best Armenian-financed lawyers tried their best to slip the forgeries in, but the chief defense attorney, von Gordon, himself decided not to ("In view of the position taken by the District Attorney and the effect it has had on the jurors, I would like to cancel my motion to have these telegrams read into the record"). Most of the transcript and related trial materials may be accessed at TAT, but regardless, these forgeries were available when Andonian’s Naim Bey book was released in 1920. The Malta Tribunal was looking for exactly such evidence, and these were passed up for obviously having been fake. It’s astounding that Peternocchio lacks such integrity that he actually attempts to fool his reader into thinking these telegrams were real.

(Prof. Norman Stone also corners Balakian on this very point, in a response to Balakian's defensive letter to a negative review of his book.)

It’s difficult to believe Armenian historians who present twisted facts do so for reasons other than cold calculation. After all, we must conclude they had to research material that don’t support their views, and there is too much of it that cannot be put in the category of “Turkish lies.” Therefore, these so-called historians know the truth, but they either withhold information, or they try to find ways to discredit these other sources… Cardashian-style smear campaigns are one of the Armenians’ age-old weapons. Sure, all these historians like Vahakn Dadrian and Richard Hovannisian have their personal demons regarding hatred of Turks... but they still must be rational enough to distinguish true fact from true fiction. The rank and file of regular Armenians don’t rely on other sources, and the bulk of these brainwashed “Armeni-Lemmings” exclusively believe what their historians tell them.

I suppose it would be possible for Peter Balakian to be an unusual hybrid. He started out as another Armeni-Lemming, closing his eyes to everything but propagandistic Armenian historiography. As he became more obsessed, and given the research skills he has showcased in the writing of this book, we have to conclude he had to force himself to look in avenues that were anathema to him. However, at that point, when he inevitably came across irrefutable sources that his deep beliefs could not possibly have supported, did he say, “Uh-oh. I had better do my best to cover this up,” as Dadrian and Hovannisian undoubtedly do? As the intelligent man Balakian comes across as, that can be the only reasonable conclusion. This is why his still trying to present the forged telegrams as legitimate evidence demonstrates an inexcusable lack of ethics.

However, I suppose it would be possible Mr. Balakian has become such an ingrained Armeni-Lemming, that even when the time came for him to conduct serious research the typical Armeni-Lemming would have no reason to get into, he would actually believe in the authenticity of these telegrams. That is too spooky an option to even contemplate. Therefore, I am going to continue believing he is merely unethical, and not pathologically delusional.

 NEXT:

 

Chapters 26-27