Interesting that the governments of
Western powers step all over themselves to appease their vocal and wealthy
Armenian and Greek constituents... keeping alive a genocide (sometimes that
includes Greek "genocides" that New York Governor Pataki, for one, shamefully recognized not long
ago; at one time, and probably still, there were more Greeks in New York City
than in Athens. How do you spell "Ethnic Politics"?) that never took
place, allegedly occurring some ninety years ago. Takes a lot of chutzpah,
doesn't it? Especially while so many other genocides have landed in the trash
heap of history. That's because the victims of these genocides simply
don't have the power or money to make their case (even in WWII — who cries
for the Gypsies?) ... and in one tragic (and relatively contemporary) example,
no people left to make their case, because the genocide actually
SUCCEEDED. (That would be the Tasmanians, wiped out by the folks down under,
while part of the British Empire.) This web site has reminded the reader of
the willful extermination of Ottoman Muslims that began years before World War
I, chiefly through Russian expansion and systematic slaughter, claiming the
lives of over five million folks, whose lives are a lot less meaningful in
Western eyes. However, let us now take a look at other forgotten unfortunates.
1) The Indians
2) "Exterminate All the Brutes" (Great Britain)
3) Further British Atrocity Examples
4) Spain's "Reconcentrado"; The Philippine War
5) Nick Elaborates on the Turks' Suffering
6) Russians and their Muslim Expulsion Policies
7) Winston Churchill
8) Genocides of Turkey's Armenian Genocide Critics
Quick, Overall Peek
An estimated 120 million native Indians were
killed in Canada, America and South America.
Small pox was used by the Spanish and British to wipe out millions of Indians to great
In the East Coast of America, 12 million buffalo
(the staple food of the Indians) were killed between 1870-1880 alone, in order to speed up
the demise of these peoples.
Hundreds of boatloads of condemned European convicts were sent with Smallpox victims
throughout the 17th,18th and 19th centuries.
General Custer was promoted for bravery in burning an Indian village of 90,000 dead
Smallpox and the Plague, according to some archaeologists, was the reason for the rapid
demise of the Mian kingdoms in South America.
(Holdwater: the above facts and figures come from unverified
“EXTERMINATE ALL THE BRUTES”
The following appeared in The New
York Times Book Review
August 18, 1996
“EXTERMINATE ALL THE BRUTES”
By Sven Lindqvist.
Translated by Joan Tate.
Illustrated. 179 pp. New York: The New Press. $20.
By Raleigh Trevelyan
THIS short book throws out a number of provocative statements, each of which could
be a theme for lengthy debate. The title comes from that chilling scrawl at the end
of Kurtz’s report on the “savage” tribes of the upper Congo River in Conrad’s
“Heart of Darkness” and refers — to put it succinctly — to the author’s
contention that the antecedents of the Holocaust lay in European, particularly
British, imperialism: “After Darwin ... racism was accepted and became a central
element in British imperial ideology. ... It became accepted to shrug your shoulders
at genocide.” There are passing glances elsewhere: at the hunting down of Indians
in Argentina in the 1830’s; at the total disappearance of Tasmanian aborigines; at
the elimination of the natives of the Canary Islands by the Spaniards at the time of
Ferdinand and Isabella; at the massacre at Wounded Knee, for which Anglo-Saxon
antecedents in the United States are blamed. Some of Sven Lindqvist’s arguments
are echoes from Hannah Arendt; but there are differences.
My hackles began at first to rise, since I am English, was born under the raj and am
convinced that those of my family who served in India did so selflessly, with
affection for its people and respect for its culture. I noted that the author is
Swedish, and that the Congo was a special preserve of King Leopold of the Belgians.
But hackles subsided somewhat when I discovered India is barely mentioned in the
book. Mr. Lindqvist is chiefly concerned with the scramble for Africa in the 1880’s
and 90’s, in relation especially to “Heart of Darkness” and the gas ovens.
In fact “Exterminate All the Brutes” is a kind of travel book, by a man widely
known on the Continent for his travel writing. He is on this journey alone, crossing
the Algerian Sahara, either by bus or hitchhiking. The journey does not end in what
was the Congo, as one might expect, but at Zinder, some way from Lake Chad. He has a
heavy suitcase and a word processor packed with gruesome data of imperialist crimes
and damningly racist quotations from Victorian writers. He says he is always
frightened when traveling, and brooding on atrocities gives him nightmares: “There
are toads for dinner. Live toads. I wake just as I am to bite the head of a toad. It
is still throbbing in my hand.” I found some of this irritating, but he describes
the desert beautifully, and his account of a sudden sandstorm makes it indeed
something to be frightened about.
“Heart of Darkness” gave me nightmarish
dreams too when I first read it: the looming dread, cannibals, the inscrutable
jungle, the shriveled heads around Kurtz’s hut. “The horror! The horror!” I
find it odd that Mr. Lindqvist does not quote these words, which are just as famous
and alarming as “Exterminate all the brutes!” — though more ambiguous. Conrad
makes his narrator, Marlow, interpret them as an affirmation, a moral victory, as
though Kurtz with his last gasp had realized the “colossal scale” of his vile
desires. Maybe they did not quite fit Mr. Lindqvist’s thesis, which in part
appears to equate individual abominations and cruelties with the policies of
governments. But he is good about the effect such critics of imperialism as H. G.
Wells, R. B. CunnInghame Graham and Charles Dilke had on Conrad, and on Conrad’s
own experiences that developed into Marlow’s account. He virtually ignores the
heroic death in 1873 of David Livingstone and his exposure of the Central African
slave trade, but rightly lambastes the odious Henry Stanley, whom he sees as sharing
some characteristics with Kurtz. He also points out that Kurtz was made to be half
English and half French; Conrad wrote, “All Europe went to the making of Kurtz.”
This I suppose deals with my objection that the Congo was Belgian. All the same,
mass murder there caused an outrage in England, even if, as Mr. Lindqvist says, “Queen
Victoria had other things to think about than a few baskets of amputated hands in
the Congo” — one being her impending jubilee in 1897, which he regards as an
episode of “unequaled arrogance.”
She also had the Sudan to think about, he says. In 1898 General Kitchener’s Maxim
guns wiped out the brave Mahdists at Omdurman. Few people wondered, he continues,
why 11,000 Sudanese died and only 48 British. “No one asked, why few or none
survived of the 16,000 wounded Sudanese.” While it is true that the victory was
ecstatically welcomed in England, this is another simplification. In his typically
dismissive way he describes Winston Churchill’s brilliant account of the battle,
in which he took part, and his remorse and horror as “outmoded” and “old-fashioned.”
Churchill wrote: “lt seemed an unfair advantage to strike thus cruelly when they
could not reply. . . Valiant men were struggling on through a hell of whistling
metal, exploding shells and spurting dust — suffering, despairing, dying.”
One of the most shameful episodes in the history of the British Empire in the 19th
century is included among illustrations here: the King of Ashanti being made to kiss
the feet of British officers. Mr. Lindqvlst also writes of the exterminatlon of the
Tasmanians, hunted by the settlers like kangaroos. It was the shock of this “train
of evil” in Tasmania, as Darwin called It, that helped to start the great debates
among British writers on the ethics of colonization and colonial wars. Some of these
debates were connected to the new, controversial theories of evolution. Some writers
cited here were crackpots, but quotations from more celebrated and humane men like
Herbert Spencer, Benjamin Kldd and Darwin are decidedly selective. Thus Darwin Is
paraphrased as saying that the intermediate forms between the primates and civilized
man are “gorillas and savages.”
So how does this relate to the Holocaust? Mr. Lindqvlst In very few pages throws his
fireworks Into the ring. The Germans had begun to envy the British and French
empires. They were being left behind; they needed Lebensraum. In South-West Africa
they managed to grab a section of the continent, where they ruthlessly demonstrated
that they had mastered “the art of hastening the extermination of a people of ‘Inferior
culture,” as exercised already by “Americans, British and other Europeans.”
They next turned their attentions to the agricultural areas of eastern Europe, and
the opportunity came for Hitler in World War II. But there were too many Jews In
Poland and the Ukraine, In some places as many as 40 percent of the population, “superfluous
eaters” to be got rid of. True, there were mass murders of Jews In past centuries,
but “the step from mass murder to genocide was not taken until the anti-Semitic
tradition met the tradition of genocide arising during Europe’s expansion In
America, Australia, Africa and Asia.” According to the Lebensraum theory, the Jews
were essentially “a landless people, like the stunted hunting people of the
African interior.” Auschwitz, Mr. Lindqvlst says, was “the modern Industrial
application of a policy of extermination on which European world domination had long
It Is no wonder that “Exterminate All the Brutes,” now translated Into English
by Joan Tate, has caused heated controversy In Sweden. It Is also worth noting that
It was written before the genocidal wars in Bosnia and Rwanda. Mr. Lindqvlst may
claim his book is not a contribution to historical research. Even so, If he had
expanded his Ideas on Imperialism and written just a lIttle more about his travels
(leaving out the dreams), it could have been far more explosive. His story about a
crazy French officer who thought he was a black chief, near Lake Chad, Is a
fascinating parallel to “Heart of Darkness.” The British are quite used to being
attacked for their hypocrisy and arrogance, and the debate about our empire, right
or wrong, is by no means over. If there are people like me who are proud of at least
some of our colonial achievements, it does not mean that we go along with Kipling’s
“White Man’s Burden,” inevitably quoted here as evidence against us.
Raleigh Trevelyan is the author of “The Golden Oriole” and the forthcoming “Companion
Guide to Sicily.”
Holdwater: A revealing article on further
British examples of "genocidal oppression" is below
The Turks haven't learned the British way of denying past
It is not illegal to
discuss the millions who were killed under our empire. So why do so few people
know about them?
Tuesday December 27, 2005
In reading reports of the trial of the Turkish novelist Orhan Pamuk, you are
struck by two things. The first, of course, is the anachronistic brutality of
the country's laws. Mr. Pamuk, like scores of other writers and journalists,
is being prosecuted for "denigrating Turkishness", which means that
he dared to mention the Armenian genocide in the first world war and the
killing of the Kurds in the past decade. The second is its staggering,
blithering stupidity. If there is one course of action that could be
calculated to turn these massacres into live issues, it is the trial of the
country's foremost novelist for mentioning them.
As it prepares for accession, the Turkish government will discover that the
other members of the EU have found a more effective means of suppression.
Without legal coercion, without the use of baying mobs to drive writers from
their homes, we have developed an almost infinite capacity to forget our own
atrocities. Atrocities? Which atrocities? When a Turkish writer uses that
word, everyone in Turkey knows what he is talking about, even if they deny it
vehemently. But most British people will stare at you blankly. So let me give
you two examples, both of which are as well documented as the Armenian
In his book Late Victorian Holocausts, published in 2001, Mike Davis tells the
story of famines that killed between 12 and 29 million Indians. These people
were, he demonstrates, murdered by British state policy. When an El Niño
drought destituted the farmers of the Deccan plateau in 1876 there was a net
surplus of rice and wheat in India. But the viceroy, Lord Lytton, insisted
that nothing should prevent its export to England. In 1877 and 1878, at the
height of the famine, grain merchants exported a record 6.4m hundredweight of
wheat. As the peasants began to starve, officials were ordered "to
discourage relief works in every possible way". The Anti-Charitable
Contributions Act of 1877 prohibited "at the pain of imprisonment private
relief donations that potentially interfered with the market fixing of grain
prices". The only relief permitted in most districts was hard labour,
from which anyone in an advanced state of starvation was turned away. In the
labour camps, the workers were given less food than inmates of Buchenwald. In
1877, monthly mortality in the camps equated to an annual death rate of 94%.
As millions died, the imperial government launched "a militarised
campaign to collect the tax arrears accumulated during the drought". The
money, which ruined those who might otherwise have survived the famine, was
used by Lytton to fund his war in Afghanistan. Even in places that had
produced a crop surplus, the government's export policies, like Stalin's in
Ukraine, manufactured hunger. In the north-western provinces, Oud and the
Punjab, which had brought in record harvests in the preceeding three years, at
least 1.25m died.
Three recent books - Britain's Gulag by Caroline Elkins, Histories of the Hanged by
David Anderson, and Web of Deceit by Mark Curtis - show how white settlers and
British troops suppressed the Mau Mau revolt in Kenya in the 1950s. Thrown off their
best land and deprived of political rights, the Kikuyu started to organise — some
of them violently — against colonial rule. The British responded by driving up to
320,000 of them into concentration camps. Most of the remainder — more than a
million — were held in "enclosed villages". Prisoners were questioned
with the help of "slicing off ears, boring holes in eardrums, flogging until
death, pouring paraffin over suspects who were then set alight, and burning eardrums
with lit cigarettes". British soldiers used a "metal castrating
instrument" to cut off testicles and fingers. "By the time I cut his balls
off," one settler boasted, "he had no ears, and his eyeball, the right
one, I think, was hanging out of its socket." The soldiers were told they could
shoot anyone they liked "provided they were black". Elkins's evidence
suggests that more than 100,000 Kikuyu were either killed or died of disease and
starvation in the camps. David Anderson documents the hanging of 1,090 suspected
rebels: far more than the French executed in Algeria. Thousands more were summarily
executed by soldiers, who claimed they had "failed to halt" when
These are just two examples of at least 20 such atrocities overseen and organised by
the British government or British colonial settlers; they include, for example, the
Tasmanian genocide, the use of collective punishment in Malaya, the bombing of
villages in Oman, the dirty war in North Yemen, the evacuation of Diego Garcia. Some
of them might trigger a vague, brainstem memory in a few thousand readers, but most
people would have no idea what I'm talking about. Max Hastings, on the opposite
page, laments our "relative lack of interest" in Stalin and Mao's crimes.
But at least we are aware that they happened.
In the Express we can read the historian Andrew Roberts arguing that for "the
vast majority of its half-millennium-long history, the British empire was an
exemplary force for good ... the British gave up their empire largely without
bloodshed, after having tried to educate their successor governments in the ways of
democracy and representative institutions" (presumably by locking up their
future leaders). In the Sunday Telegraph, he insists that "the British empire
delivered astonishing growth rates, at least in those places fortunate enough to be
coloured pink on the globe". (Compare this to Mike Davis's central finding,
that "there was no increase in India's per capita income from 1757 to
1947", or to Prasannan Parthasarathi's demonstration that "South Indian
labourers had higher earnings than their British counterparts in the 18th century
and lived lives of greater financial security.") In the Daily Telegraph, John
Keegan asserts that "the empire became in its last years highly benevolent and
moralistic". The Victorians "set out to bring civilisation and good
government to their colonies and to leave when they were no longer welcome. In
almost every country, once coloured red on the map, they stuck to their
There is one, rightly sacred Holocaust in European history. All the others can be
denied, ignored, or belittled. As Mark Curtis points out, the dominant system of
thought in Britain "promotes one key concept that underpins everything else -
the idea of Britain's basic benevolence ... Criticism of foreign policies is
certainly possible, and normal, but within narrow limits which show 'exceptions' to,
or 'mistakes' in, promoting the rule of basic benevolence". This idea, I fear,
is the true "sense of British cultural identity" whose alleged loss Max
laments today. No judge or censor is required to enforce it. The men who own the
papers simply commission the stories they want to read.
Turkey's accession to the European Union, now jeopardised by the trial of Orhan
Pamuk, requires not that it comes to terms with its atrocities; only that it permits
its writers to rage impotently against them. If the government wants the genocide of
the Armenians to be forgotten, it should drop its censorship laws and let people say
what they want. It needs only allow Richard Desmond and the Barclay brothers to buy
up the country's newspapers, and the past will never trouble it again.
Holdwater: Motives for why Pamuk was
picked on is examined here; note how
the above author labels this trial as "anachronistic brutality," but says
nothing about similar freedom of speech curtailing laws in France, Switzerland,
Belgium and Austria, when they pertain to "genocide deniers."
|Only Nineteen Years Before the Armenian "Genocide"... and
then, Just Some Ten Years Before the Armenian "Genocide"...
episode in history took place, with strikingly similar figures. Yet, I
have never heard about it. Have you?
If not, why do you suppose that is... and
why do you $uppo$e we keep hearing about the Armenian "Genocide," time and
time again? The affected people of this historical episode were Christians as well,
so their lives couldn't have been any less valuable than the Armenians' lives....
Similarly, a "rerun" from the link above:
The Philippine War
"Villages were destroyed,
civilians murdered, prisoners tortured and mutilated along with a host of other
atrocities. Many American officers and non-coms had served in the Indian Wars, and thus
applied the old belief that 'the only good Indian was a dead Indian' to their relations
with the Filipinos. This attitude, of course, was reciprocated by the native forces."
U.S.-- 4,234 dead and 2,818 wounded.
Philippines-- 20,000 military dead and 200,000-500,000+ civilian
dead. (Filipinos estimate from 250,000 to one million.)
"...Caloocan was supposed to contain
seventeen thousand inhabitants. The Twentieth Kansas swept through it, and now Caloocan
contains not one living native....War is worse than hell."-- Soldier's Letter, Captain Elliott of the Kansas Regiment, February 27th
Filipino child, spear in hand, resists
President McKinley's attempt at "ethnic
cleansing.," in the "waters of civilization."
("Oh, you dirty boy!" Judge, June 1899,
after the Philippines had been sold to the
US by Spain for $20 million)
Holdwater: The Philippine War
was officially proclaimed "over" by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1902, but
actually continued on several islands for years. Only some ten years apart from the
Armenian "Genocide," and the United States appears to have acted distinctly more
genocidally (with the "the only good Filipino is a dead Filipino" mentality)
than the Ottoman Turks (where massacres by government forces as policy have yet to be
proven), and was responsible for perhaps more civilian deaths and atrocities (some
historians estimate over half a million) than the Armenian casualties of 300,000 to
600,000 from all causes combined — including the famine and disease that did not
discriminate among all Ottoman civilians,
along with the Armenian "non-civilian" combatants. Yet the United States
Congress has the audacity to bring up Armenian "Genocide" resolutions, year
after year. How do you like that?
I wonder why the U.S. Congress does
not come up with an Algerian Resolution, honoring the couple of hundred thousand Algerian
civilians who were done in by the French... and I wonder why the French Parliament does
not similarly come up with a Filipino Resolution, honoring the perhaps over five hundred
thousand Filipino civilians who were done in by the Americans? I wonder why both keep
harping on the Armenian "Geno$ide"?
reading on American attitudes toward the Filipinos, during the war... setting an
excellent parallel to American views toward the Turks.
A 2007 documentary from the History Channel entitled "First Intervention: The
Spanish-American War" (directed and produced by Phil Tuckett. Three quick notes
of interest: Indian war veterans included the "Bufallo soldiers," a black
regiment, at least in the Cuban end of the Spanish-American War. Next, the sinking of the
Maine, which sparked aggression against Spain, was determined in 1976 by the U.S. Navy to
be "an accidental fire in the ship's coal bunker that ignited ammunitions stored
nearby." Lastly, one of the talking heads made a good impression, David Trask,
author of "The War With Spain, 1898"; an excerpt: "..Empire is a
dangerous commodity; the control of colonial peoples is not only immoral, especially in
terms of the values of the Republic, but also expedientially unsound, that you are very
likely to get into more trouble than good... Our big mistake was the Philippine
insurrection; the other acquistions ... that resulted from the war with Spain could be
justified on a strategic basis, but not the Philippines. It involved us in East Asian
affairs in a way that we wouldn't have had to have been involved, it was a mistake to go
out there. But it's like a summer romance, it's much easier to start one than to end
one." One more quickie: I liked actor Michael Cawelti's portrayal of Theodore
Roosevelt) glossed over the Philippine years with one sentence: "This (war) isn't
quite over yet; the U.S. takeover of the Philippines leads to an insurrection... it
lasts six years and costs more than 20,000 lives." (In America's defense,
another talking head, Dr. Lewis Gould, explained a Philippine takeover was prudent to
prevent near certain Japanese domination.)
A Filipino-centric view on U.S.-Philippines matters (including post WWI relations) claims,
relating to the Philippine War, "Most recent accounts by independent historians
put the death toll at 1.5 million." It may be accessed here.
Letter appearing in Queens Chronicle, November 22, 2007, p. 9:
Is waterboarding a form of torture? I believe it is. But at least it's more benign than
the water torture that was used by the American army on Filipino insurgents during the
Spanish American War in the early 20th century.
During that conflict the "water cure," in which sections of bamboo were forced
down the throats of prisoners and then used to fill the prisoners' stomachs with dirty
water until they swelled in torment, was used to gain information. Soldiers would jump on
the prisoner's stomach to force the water out, often repeating the process until the
victim either informed or died. This technique was so widely reported that the Cleveland
Plain Dealer even published a joke about it:
Ma: What's the sound of running water out there, Willie?
Willie: It's only us boys, Ma. We've been trying the Philippine water cure on Bobby Snow,
and we're pouring him out.
I suspect few Americans would laugh at a similar joke about waterboarding today. We're far
too civilized. Aren't we?
Elaborates on the Turks' Suffering
...While you all witter on about the Armenian
genocide it is conveniently put aside that Muslims were also suffering; since the
early 1800 as the Ottoman empire contracted, millions were evicted from the Crimea,
Balkans and Caucusus with great suffering and pain. For example — in the mid 1800s
about 1.2 million Abkhaz and Circassians were "cleared"- to use the phrase
of an American missionary to describe the actions of Russo-Armenian troops in 1915
— from their homelands. They were put on boats and sent to Turkey. In the process
one third died of murder or disease. In this one event you have a catastrophe of
similar proportions to the one suffered by Armenians. During and immediately after
the Bulgarian wars in 1876 about 200,000 Bulgarian Muslims died. In the 1820s Erivan
province had a Muslim majority, by the turn of the century Muslims were a small
minority. From 1912-1915 alone there were 500,000 Turkish refugees from the Balkans
entering Turkey. After the Turks lost Eastern Anatolia to Russia in 1915 the Ottoman
government enumerated about 850,000 Muslim refugees but in reality it was probably
over a million. It is a meaningless exercise to talk of Armenian genocide and not to
discuss these other factors. If we are in the business of apologising then others
should be expressing regret also; Russians, Bulgarians, Serbs, Greeks and, yes, even
Excerpted from a guestbook
|1.5 million Chechens have suffered losses (the 25%
claimed below would amount to nearly 400,000) similar to the Armenians , through a
genocidal policy much more clear-cut than the one alleged against the Armenians... at
a time of more recent history than the Armenians. Yet it has never occurred to the
U.S. Congress and/or the French Parliament to come up with a "resolution" decrying this example of "Man's
Inhumanity to Man." Why i$ that?
In the process of clamping down on all these revolts,
Russia has even managed to attempt genocide at least twice.
For example, in the 1940s 14,000 Chechens and Ingush — 3 per cent of their entire
populations — were shot and killed by Stalin’s secret police, their bodies then
dumped into a pit. The act is comparable to the mass murder of Jews in the pit at
Babi Yar, committed four years before by Hitler’s forces. Stalin later proceeded
to ‘cleanse’ almost all 1.5 million Chechens, forcibly deporting them to
concentration camps in Siberia. About 25 per cent of them died in these camps.
Another 2 million Muslims in the former Soviet Union, including Dagestanis, were
similarly evicted to join their dying brothers and sisters in Stalin’s death
camps. Eric Margolis thus notes that the Chechens are “the children of a nation
that has three times nearly been exterminated by Russian genocide: in the 18th, 19th
and 20th centuries, the last when Stalin had tens of thousands of Chechens shot and
the remainder of the Chechen people deported to Siberian concentration camps.”
David Damren, an Associate Faculty Member in the Department of
Religious Studies at Arizona State University, provides an overview of Russia’s
attempts to wipe out both the Chechen people and their Islamic faith: “During
WWII, when disturbances occurred in Chechnya in 1940 and again in 1943, Stalin
responded with astonishing brutality that bordered on genocide. Accusing them of
still unproven collaboration with Nazi Germany, in 1944 he forcibly relocated six
entire Caucasian nationalities, including the whole Chechen and Ingush populations,
to special camps in Central Asia. All told, more than a million Muslims from the
Caucasus were deported, with tremendous loss of life. By some estimates one third to
one-half of the population of Chechen-Ingushetia alone - well over 250,000 people -
disappeared after the republic was liquidated in February 1944.
(Armenians like to claim they, too, were
sent to concentration camps, the kind that people get imprisoned in... but like much
of the rest of what the Armenians say, it's bunk.) The rest of this fine article can be found on the
|Exterminating the Brutes, Part II
Winston Churchill was just the bloody right cup of tea his nation desperately
needed to see the bleak, W.W.II years of horrors through. (Not just his country,
but the world... if somebody like Neville Chamberlain had been sitting at his
post, a flag with a Swastika might be flying atop the White House today.) Clearly,
one of the great men of history.
wasn't perfect. Gallipoli was perhaps the biggest fiasco of his political career
when he was made the scapegoat as First Lord of the Admiralty, forcing his
resignation in November 1916. Perhaps he had a resulting chip on his shoulder
regarding the Turks afterwards, as he certainly expressed (just like all the other
British statesmen) some clearly irresponsible conclusions regarding the Ottoman
Empire's being behind a policy of extermination, when there was no proof. (As if
it wasn't bad enough he made the decision to steal the "Sultan Osman"
ship from the Turks, the one that was partly paid for by the Turkish peasantry,
even after Britain's Attorney General declared doing so would be illegal;
Churchill excused this course of action by saying, "We must... make such
defence of our action to Turkey as we can" [David Fromkin, A Peace to End
All Peace.] Before withholding the ship, however, Churchill made sure to
collect the last payment from the Turks! ("There was no reason why the money
due [£800,000] should not be accepted.")
Shut my sweet mouth! And here
I thought when an Armenian professor claimed the English
were related to the Armenians, I thought
he was only kidding. Well, I'm still not sure I entirely believe him, but now I
think Winston must have been part genocide-obsessed Armenian (the variety not
known for honor)... otherwise, how could he have reneged on a deal in such monumental fashion?
At any rate, it's doubtful Churchill would have stood much in the way of Lloyd
George's intention to wipe Turkey off the face of the earth... after all, that was part of Great
Britain's plans in carving up the Ottoman Empire. Using the fabricated Armenian
"Genocide" as punishment, we would get the Christian folks to come in
(The United Kingdom backed Greece's invasion of Anatolia, only to abandon them
when the Greeks sliced and diced the defenseless citizenry much too close for
comfort), and we would get the Moslem folks to clear out. Since Churchill was so
genocidally righteous, it's only fair to examine where he stood on other
extermination/deportation topics, particularly in the Moslem world. We pick up at
the point where the Arabs had been promised independence, via Lawrence of Arabia,
in return for their cooperation to help the Brits wrest lands away from the
Ottoman Empire... but for some reason, the Brits went back on their word:
According to historians, Britain used poison gas to
quell a 1920 tribal uprising in the northern Kurdish town of Kirkuk.
Arguing strongly for the use of mustard gas in 1919, Winston Churchill —
then a secretary of state in Britain's War Office — said he did not understand
the 'squeamishness about the use of gas.'
'I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes,' the former British prime minister was quoted in "Iraq: From Sumer To
Saddam," by Iraqi expert Geoff Simons.
(So THAT's where Saddam got
the idea to use chemical weapons against the Iraqi Kurds..!)
As early as October 25, 1919 Winston Churchill predicted that Zionism implied the
clearing of the indigenous population:
"There are the Jews, whom we are pledged to introduce into Palestine, and who
take it for granted the local [Palestinian] population will be cleared out to suit
"Expulsion Of The Palestinians," p. 15, by Nur Masalha
Dr. Robert John on Churchill's honor:
The INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR HUMAN ECOLOGY AND
ETHNOLOGY mission includes the improvement of understanding between national and ethnic
This bulletin is on the origin of the bombing of civilians in World War II.
A program on BBC television on the first of July 2005 demonstrated the origin.
The program was Decisive Weapons, the Hurricane airplane.
In the Battle of Britain following the capitulation of France, the Hurricane was more
maneuverable than the Spitfire.
The Luftwaffe was bombing British airfields, with fighter escorts.
German losses in aircraft were proportionally greater than the British. But since the
Germans had more planes, the end of RAF resistance was near.
At this point, Winston Churchill ordered a token bombing air raid on one of the best
residential areas in Berlin.
The Germans retaliated, diverting their bombers from attacks on British air defenses.
So began the bombing of civilians in Dresden and Wurzburg, and London.
Is deliberate bombing of civilians terrorism?
This decision by Churchill parallels a similar one in World War I, when he was first Lord
of the Admiralty. In accordance with the rules of war, German U-boat captains surfaced and
gave merchant ships time for their crew to take to the boats before their ship was
Churchill armed merchant ships. When German submarines surfaced they were shelled.
Thereafter, unrestricted submarine warfare was used to incite American indignation and
promote entry into the war.
This characteristic of Churchill to win, without honor if believed necessary, was seen by
his peers, and was why he was dismissed by most of his social class as a CAD. Did he
inherit this trait from his mother?
The idea of military honor, the spirit of sportsmanship rather than win at all costs, are
history. Robert John, OAH, director general ICHEE.org (07-2005)
"Falsification of history has done more to impede human development than any one
thing known to mankind" -- Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
BY TURKEY'S ARMENIAN GENOCIDE CRITICS
By Bruce Fein
The Government of Turkey has been assailed by several members of the European Union,
the European Parliament, and various arms of government in the United states for
failing to concede that the 1915-23 treatment of Armenian subjects by the Ottoman
Empire constituted genocide under terms of the Genocide Convention. One strategy for
discouraging such gratuitous insults to history and justice is to demonstrate that
Turkey's accusers have been guilty of the same misconduct but have staunchly
resisted self-condemnations as perpetrators of genocide, in other words, they are
applying a double and hypocritical legal standard for the crime of genocide.
This essay elaborates on that strategy, and demonstrates the moral selectivity of
the EU and the United States in political and moral posturing over the claimed
The Genocide Convention of 1948 defines the crime as any of the following acts
committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial
or religious group, as such:
1. Killing group members; 2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to group members;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about
its physical destruction in whole or in part; 4. Imposing measures intended to
prevent births within the group; and, 5. Forcibly transferring children of the group
to another group.
The Convention also extends the crime of genocide to reach conspiracy, direct and
public incitement, and attempt to commit genocide, or complicity in the same.
With regard to the claimed Armenian genocide, strong disproving evidence can be
summoned. The relocations and killings of Armenians were not based on ethnicity, but
on reasonable suspicions that they were aiding and aborting the war enemies of the
Ottoman Empire during World War I. Indeed, at the Versailles Peace Conference,
Armenians boasted of their treason to the Ottoman government and military heroics
for the World War I victors, especially Russia and France. Moreover, tens of
thousands of Armenians were left undisturbed during the war in Istanbul, Izmir and
elsewhere in non-military sensitive zones, which shows that the Armenian relocation
orders pivoted on reasonable war necessities, not ethnicity, a fundamental element
of genocide. Additionally, Ottoman officials prosecuted and
punished more than 1,000 wayward soldiers for killings or abuses of Armenians.
Furthermore, a substantial number of Armenian massacres during the war were
retaliation for their massacres of Ottoman Muslims, not because of ethnicity or
religion. Moreover, there was no historical animosity of the Ottoman's toward
Armenians, who had climbed to peaks of official power and economic prosperity within
the Empire before the World War I. More could be said against the claimed Armenian
genocide, but the above sketch of contrary evidence enables a comparison with the
proof of genocide charges that could be asserted against EU members and the United
States. The following summarizes some of the genocide indictments that might
reasonably be brought against Turkey's detractors:
Germany committed genocide against the Herero tribe in then Southwest Africa during
its colonial occupation in the 1890s. The best evidence shows the Germans
slaughtered members of the tribe because they believed they were genetically and
mentally inferior. The tribe was not guilty of treason and not provoked the German
savagery by its own massacres of Germans. The butchery of the Hereros was not during
wartime when excesses are inevitable. Those who survived the initial German genocide
revolted against their brutal treatment with the Hoitentots in 1904, but were
viciously destroyed with vastly superior arms or otherwise.
Substantial evidence implicates France in Algerian genocide during 1954-62 war of
independence in which more than 200,000 Muslims were slaughtered. Senior French
officers who fought in Algeria have recently confessed that torture and summary
executions were routine grisly instruments of French warfare. President Chirac and
Prime Minister Jospin, however, have fiercely opposed a parliamentary inquiry into
the genocide as exploring a subject best left to historians.
Belgium is seemingly guilty of genocide during its gruesome colonization of Belgian
Congo under King Leopold II. The genocide spurred the legendary book by Joseph
Conrad, Heart of Darkness. The King deliberately inflicted on numerous Congolese
tribes conditions of calculated to bring about their physical destruction in whole
or in part. Belgium's ugly Congo genocide has been recently chronicled in the book,
King Leopold's Ghost.
Portugal's apparent genocides uncurtained in Angola, Portuguese Guinea, and
Mozambique during colonial years. The Portuguese sold back tribal members as slaves,
and inflicted brutal conditions of slave and caused death to Angolan, Guinean, and
Spain seems implicated in the genocides of hundreds of Caribbean and Central and
South American peoples, like the Mexican Aztecs, and the genocide of Basques in
mainland Spain. Spanish killings and enslavements of indigenous tribes and peoples
are notorious, and stretched over centuries. Ditto for Spanish Basques living on the
border with France. Slavery was not ended in Cuba until Spain's defeat in 1898
Spanish-American war. Spain may also have been guilty of genocide in Spanish Morocco
during its colonization.
6. Great Britain
The British apparently committed genocide of the Irish during the Great Potato
Famine, 1845-48. the Irish lost ½ their population from emigration provoked by
starvation conditions, and the British aggravated the starvation by callous policies
permitting the exports of foodstuffs from Ireland during the famine calamity. The
state of New York in the United States teaches the Potato Famine as an example of
Austria is guilty of the Jewish Holocaust. The sole reason it escaped that hideous
stigma is because of Cold War politics after World War II when it was occupied by
the West and the Soviet Union until 1955.
Greece is guilty of genocide of Ottoman Muslims in Crete and of Turkish Cypriots in
Cyprus twice, 1963-64 and 1974. The evidence of genocide is voluminous, including
testimony from former U.S. Undersecretary of State George Ball and foreign reporters
on the scene.
Italy is guilty of genocide in Ethiopia and Somalia during its colonization and war
aggressions, and a co-inspirator in the Jewish Holocaust as an ally of Hitler's
The Dutch seem indictable for genocide of Indonesian tribes during its long colonial
rule that ended only after World War II. The Dutch slaughtered and subjugated
indigenous populations for economic gain and a belief in their racial and religious
11. United States
The United states is seemingly guilty of genocides of several Native American Indian
tribes and blacks during slavery. The Sand Creek massacre of helpless Indian woman
and children and General Phil Sheridan's fighting fighting creed that only good
Indian is a dead Indian exemplifies the former genocides. The lethal conditions of
black slavery captured in Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin illustrates the
12. Australia and New Zealand
Neither country is a EU member, but both associated with its lofty ideology of moral
superiority, and were former colonies of Great Britain. Both under the colonialism
of the latter and during their early years of independence, these twin nations
committed genocides against Australian aboriginals and New Zealand Maoris,
Bruce Fein is
an attorney and Adjunct Scholar of ATAA
Thanks to turkisharmenians.faithweb.com