Tall Armenian Tale


The Other Side of the Falsified Genocide


  New Research Refuting the "Armenian Genocide"  
First Page


Major Players
Links & Misc.



Mahmut Ozan
Edward Tashji
Sam Weems

 The following is from a document entitled, "OPPOSE H. Res. 106," in response to the latest Armenian genocide resolution introduced in Congress. The crackerjack researcher had nothing to do with the organization that received the credit; some truly wonderful sources have been uncovered here.



New Research: U.S. Army Intelligence Officer Notes Armenian Massacres Of Turks


Charles Furlong. He was invited
to Turkey on the republic's 50th
anniversary, as an honored guest.
More on this fascinating fellow.

Charles W. Furlong: U.S. Army Intelligence Officer 1917-1919. U.S. Delegate To The Paris Peace Conference

• Charles W. Furlong was one of the great American explorers of distant lands and observers of foreign peoples. During WWI as a U.S. Army intelligence officer he spent significant time in the eastern Ottoman Empire. President Woodrow Wilson found his contributions so valuable that he appointed him to the U.S. Delegation to the Paris Peace Conference.


• In a March 23, 1920 letter to President Wilson, Furlong criticizes America's susceptibility to pro-Armenian propaganda, he writes: "We hear much, both truth and gross exaggeration of Turkish massacre of Armenians, but little or nothing of the Armenian massacres of Turks.

• In the same letter, Furlong provides evidence that some alleged massacres of Armenians were based on poor or politically motivated reporting: "The recent so-called Marash massacres [of Armenians] have not been substantiated, in fact, in the minds of many who are familiar with the situation, there is a grave question whether it was not the Turk who suffered at the hands of the Armenian and French armed contingents which were known to be occupying that city and vicinity."

• In a July 25, 1921 speech, Furlong declared, "I know of no country today that is having more unjust propaganda put over against it [than Turkey]. Turkey has its faults, but half truths are worse than none. We hear half the truth when we hear of the massacres of Armenians in Turkey; we'll have the other half when we hear of the massacres of Turks by Armenians and Greeks."


• In his March 23, 1920 letter to President Wilson, Furlong worried that the U.S.' overt favoritism toward Christian pleas would harm our ability to carry out policy in the Muslim world. Furlong said, "[OJur opportunity to gain the esteem and respect of the Moslem world ... will depend much on whether America hears Turkey's untrammeled voice and evidence which she has never succeeded in placing before the Court of Nations." A right decision on the treatment of Turkey, Furlong continued, "will bind closer ... the eastern and western world ...," while a wrong decision, Furlong warned, "will be a calamity and may again set aflame an infinitely greater fire than that which seems to be smothered."


New Research: Prejudicial U.S. Reporting On The Ottoman Empire Was The Work Of Armenians

U.S. Archives Include Reports Expressing Doubt About The Objectivity Of Information Provided By Armenians In The Employ Of The U.S.

Consul General Suspects Prejudice

• On February 2,1920, W. Stanley Hollis, the U.S. Consul General in Beirut and then London, wrote to the Secretary of State voicing extreme doubt on the quality of the reporting produced by the U.S. Embassy in Istanbul. He accused the Embassy of disregarding his reports and falling under the sway of the Embassy's Armenian translator, Mr. Arshag Schmavonian. Hollis wrote:

Arshag K. Schmavonian


"Although in all of my dispatches, and in my letters to the Embassy, I confined myself to statements of actual fact ... such reports of facts and actual occurrences were not well received by the Embassy. ... [T]he attitude of the Embassy at [Istanbul] towards a Consular Officer's reports was largely influenced by the opinions of its Armenian Dragoman, Mr. Schmavonian..."

• Mr. Schmavonian was earlier in the employ of U.S. Ambassador Morgenthau, who admitted that Schmavonian and other Armenian translators were given great liberties to modify his reports.


• The Preliminary Peace Conference (Paris, 1919) included a 'Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War and on Enforcement of Penalties.' Not surprisingly, the U.S., one of war's victors, entirely blamed the vanquished: Germany and the Ottoman Empire. A subcommission was appointed to (a) establish whether criminal acts were committed during the war and (b) prepare prosecutions.

• Among the charges leveled by the subcommission, which was chaired by U.S. Secretary of State Lansing, was "Massacres of Armenians by the Turks." The report presented to the conference by the commission lists as the primary source of this accusation a "Memorandum of the Armenian Patriarchate of [Istanbul] addressed to the Ambassadors of France and Great Britain." The next source listed is an "Armenian Memorandum addressed to the Conference." Then a "Report on the American Relief Committee in favor of the Armenians and the Syrians."

> The Subcommittee described Armenian losses as "more than 200,000." This is far short of the inflammatory 1.5 million figure used by H. Res. 106.

> The report contains no accusation that the Ottoman government contravened the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions, while it did accuse Germany, Austria, Hungary and Bulgaria of the same.

Holdwater: Here's what Prof. Dennis Papazian wrote in his "Misplaced Credulity":

In fact, just to be sure, Morgenthau directed his consuls to personally verify the Armenian killings in each of their regions and to carefully draw distinctions in their reports between what they heard--even from reliable sources--and what they actually witnessed.

Now we know what a falsehood that was. Here was one exception in the crowd of American consuls, who seems to have only cared for the facts, and he is complaining that Ambassador Morgenthau did not well receive these reports. Is it because Morgenthau had a bias, and an agenda, influenced by Morgenthau's Armenian assistants?

William Stanley Hollis, after his two year stint in London, went on to serve as consul in Portugal from 1920-1927. In a July 28, 1921
dispatch (entitled "Mysterious Disappearance of American Vessels") to the U.S. Secretary of State, he looked into the "Bermuda Triangle."


New Research: 1920's Head Of The Armenia America Society Put Armenian Wartime Losses At approx. 500,000

President Wilson's Own Emissary To The Paris Peace Conference Found That Two-Thirds Of The Ottoman Armenians Survived The War


• George Montgomery was born in Marash in the Ottoman Empire in 1870 to missionary parents. He traveled extensively in the region and, after pursuing doctoral studies at Harvard, accompanied the King-Crane Commission on Syria and Palestine. The U.S. government appointed him as an expert to the American Commission to Negotiate Peace in Paris in 1919. Among the issues to be considered was the partition of the Ottoman Empire, including the potential establishment of an Armenian state, which Montgomery supported.

> Montgomery also was a member of the America Armenia Society. Among his papers is a letter from the President of the Armenian National Delegation to the Paris Peace Conference, Boghos Nubar, lauding him for his commitment to the Armenian cause.


• H. Res. 106 repeats the oft-quoted figure of 1.5 million Armenian losses, which lacks rational historic justification. Montgomery was an expert in the region. He was born there and had lived there. He was raised in a missionary family whose ambition was to minister to the Armenians.

• Montgomery's report, "The Non-Arab Portion of the Ottoman Empire," estimates the Armenians' prewar population in Ottoman lands at 1.6 million. He added, "It is safe to say that the figures do not err on the side of exaggeration as to numbers of Armenians."

• In the same report Montgomery tallies the post-war Armenian population and finds 1.104 million Armenians either remaining in Ottoman territory or living as refugees in neighboring states.

• From here the math is simple: According to the U.S.' own representative to the Paris Peace Conference, Armenian wartime losses were no more than 500,000.

> H. Res. 106 uses a puffed up figure that has been contrived to elicit emotion not historical understanding. Unfortunately, the rest of H. Res. 106 is equally loose with the facts.



Landmark Decision: World Court Rules That Genocide Requires Proof Of Specific Intent

In First Ever Case Against A Sovereign State For Genocide, The International Court Of Justice Rules That Intent To Commit Genocide Must Clearly Be Established By Facts And May Not Be Assumed Merely From Deaths


• According to the UN Genocide Convention, to which the US is a party, the International Court of Justice at the Hague (ICJ) is the sole competent tribunal to hear accusations of State responsibility for the crime of genocide. On February 26, the ICJ issued its first ruling in 60 years in such a case: Bosnia v. Serbia.

• Whether the accused possessed the requisite intent is the critical question in all genocide prosecutions. In its landmark ruling, the ICJ describes the requisite intent under the Convention in two stages: first that the acts must be committed purposefully, and second that one must establish the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, . . . [the protected] group, as such." The court continued, "It is not enough to establish ... that deliberate unlawful killings of members of the group have occurred. ... Something more is required. The acts listed in Article II [of the Genocide Convention] must be done with intent to destroy the group as such in whole or in part. The words 'as such' emphasize that intent to destroy the protected group.

> Therefore, although certain Armenian deaths may have constituted intentional killings, they do not, even when discussed collectively, automatically rise to level of State-sanctioned genocide.

• The ICJ instructs that "specific intent is also to be distinguished from other reasons or motives the perpetrator may have. Great care must be taken in finding in the facts a sufficiently clear manifestation of that intent." In other words, one cannot infer specific intent solely, as some Armenian advocates tend to do, from the fact that many Armenians died. Evidence must clearly demonstrate specific intent within the meaning of the Convention and that has not been done.

• Nothing alleged in H. Res. 106 or in the materials referred to in H. Res. 106 meets this newly articulated standard.









"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.