Tall Armenian Tale


The Other Side of the Falsified Genocide


  Feelings on Terrorist Leaders: "All of Us are to Blame"  
First Page


Major Players
Links & Misc.



Mahmut Ozan
Edward Tashji
Sam Weems

 Esat Uras, “The Armenians in History and the Armenian Question,” 1988, pp. 705-708, has journeyed to where few non-Armenian scholars have gone: the original Armenian sources. Below are a few examples of what some Armenians thought of the actions of their greedy and fanatical revolutionary leaders.


Sempat Kaprielian

Uras writes:

Sempat Kaprielian gives the following very interesting account of the revolutionists and terrorist activity: (S. Kaprielian, Armenian Crisis and Rebirth, Boston, p.94-157; in Armenian)

"A wealthy Armenian living in Europe gave the following extremely cutting reply to some revolutionary Armenians who asked him for money:' I have no desire to see my money make me the executioner of my own country!' Djamharian, a wealthy Armenian killed by the Dashnaktsutiun terrorists in Moscow was no doubt of the same opinion. Djamharian met the expenses of an Armenian orphanage from his own pocket, and he probably had no wish to see an increase in the number of orphans. Balyozian was murdered in Izmir for the same reason. And we have an even more recent example in Bahalian, a Russian Armenian who refused to give the money demanded in threatening notes sent by the revolutionary committee and was strangled in the street in the city of Novrosisk on 10 November. A long history could be written full of such crimes and atrocities carried out in the name of the Dashnaktsutiun.

Anyone who protested against such acts would be denounced by his own friends and sometimes even sentenced to death. Such cruelty and ferocity became a characteristic feature of the Armenian revolutionaries. When, after the Kumkapi incident, the Caucasian Armenians rebelled, the Dashnaktsutiun took advantage of this to obtain large sums of money. Settling down in the border area between Tabriz and Turkey, they drank to freedom in copious draughts of wine and champagne and
indulged in riotous behaviour that made them a burden to the Armenian villages in which they had taken up residence. One of the revolutionaries, who had set out to Tiflis to report on their disgraceful behaviour, was joined by two of his companions who. after nightfall, suddenly attacked and killed him. Tohmalaian Vartabet, a man with the courage of his convictions and who had the heroism of spirit to protest against such atrocities, met with a similar fate. He was enticed out into the outskirts of a small Armenian country town and there cut to pieces. Gergesian, a member of Dashnaktsutiun and the first to bathe the Armenian revolutionary flag in his sacred blood, was murdered in Erzurum. But such thoughtless acts of violence aroused a wave ofprotests- The Armenians themselves deplored these crimes and atrocities, of which they were deeply ashamed. The revolutionaries, however, had the effrontery to declare that they themselves were the only true sons of the Armenian nation, and that it was in them alone that the national spirit was enshrined.

Let us carry this criticism farther: Though the Dashnaktsutian engaged in ever more outrageous and insensate acts of violence than the Hunchaks, both committees were foolish enough to insist on a revolution for which they themselves ought to have seen that the conditions were far from ripe. It was this irrational obstinacy that was to lead to the following catastrophic results:

1. They beat the drum of revolution to attract into the coffers of the revolutionary parties the money the Armenian workers have earned by the sweat of their brow, but with every beat of the drum they intensify the careful scrutiny of Armenian affairs by the Turkish government.

2. The egoism of the revolutionaries leads them to believe that they are the most devoted to the cause, the most self-sacrificing of all Armenia's sons.

3. Rivalry between the committes gives rise to mutual hatred and jealousy, leading to brothers taking up arms against brothers.

4. The forcible measures adopted by the Armenian revolutionaries towards the people, their extortion of money from the rich to give to the poor have reduced the nation to a state of moral and material ruin and despair.

5. The clandestine killing of rivals that forms such a characteristic feature of the Machiavellian policy pursued by the Armenian revolutionaries has branded all Armenians as murderers and brought dishonour on the Armenian name.

6. By attracting the attention of Armenian youth in foreign countries to fictive and fanciful goals they have reduced them to utter misery and ruin.

They prevent the use of the revolutionary forces in important work such as national revival, turning them away from such ends and making it impossible for them to perform any useful purpose.

These men extort financial contributions from the poor peasants, selling to the Armenians of Sasun and Mus[h] the arms with which they themselves were provided, and even forcing these wretched souls to sell their household goods, their herds and their flocks in order to purchase these weapons. If only they had eyes to see, they would realize the futility and noxiousness of their behaviour towards a people who have grown weary and disgusted under the blows of a cruel and tyrannical power, not of war and conflict but of life itself. But, if I am to remain impartial, I must confess that it is not only you who are to blame. All of us are to blame. We were all foolish enough to believe that Europe was to be the saviour of Armenia and that the crown of the independence we had lost was to be restored to us from the West.

This fallacy lies at the foundation of our whole national policy. We came to regard Europe as our Messiah, and we waited day after day for the Saviours to arrive for the salvation of Armenia.

Bishop Mushegh 

Uras writes:

Bishop Mushegh, a fanatical terrorist in the guise of a priest and one of the organizers of the Adana incident of 1909, regarded the actions of the revolutionary committees as fully justified. He writes as follows: (Bishop Mushegh, The Armenian Nightmare, Boston, 1916, pp. 150-151; in Armenian)

"First of all I should like to make it clear that in my revolutionary days I was always opposed to extorting money by threats. Agents and traitors deserve the bullets fired at them by the revolutionaries, but committee members should think very carefully as to who must accept the responsibility for the bullet fired at a wealthy Armenian who refuses to pay.

Think of a handful of Armenians: The blood is still dripping from the wound torn open in their hearts by a repressive administration; they have sacrificed their whole livelihood in the service of an ideal; and for a whole lifetime, sustained by faith and idealism, for without ideals and vision nothing can be achieved in this world, they await the materialization of the ideal brought forth and cherished in the depths of their souls. Hoping to prevent the destruction of all their hopes, they knock at the door of a wealthy Armenian, as one would knock at a brother's door, and find themselves turned away with insults and contempt. Tell me, I beg you, are the murderous feelings, the fratricidal feelings, aroused in the soul of the militant, the Armenian revolutionary, who has drunk to the dregs the cup of suffering and despair, to be blamed on the indifference shown by the wealthy Armenian or on the passion felt by the revolutionary?

Do not look for thought or reflection in such a situation. There is only one feeling, one passion, and it is this: "In the matter of feeling, the wealthy Armenian is an utter stranger to the pain and suffering of the Armenian. There is scarcely a step between the stranger and the enemy. The wealthy Armenian is an enemy to the Armenian cause.

The heart of the Armenian revolutionary is dominated by this thought and this feeling alone. What do you expect from such an abnormal emotion? Is the responsibility for this evil thought to be sought in the alienation of the wealthy or in the heart of the revolutionary?"








"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.