Tall Armenian Tale


The Other Side of the Falsified Genocide


  Rebuttal to an Armenian Rebuttal  
First Page


Major Players
Links & Misc.


Mahmut Ozan
Edward Tashji
Sam Weems

When I began constructing this web site, one of the first pages I presented was an addressing of an Armenian "FAQ" page I noticed on several Armenian web sites. These were frequently brought up points from the Turkish "denial" camp, and the infrequently provided answers from the Armenians. I respect Professor Papazian for attempting to provide an explanation to the Turkish arguments, as often all Armenians are content in doing is repeating the positions they've been repeating for so long, no matter how based in fantasy... simply because they've had the luxury to do so, unopposed, for nearly a century.

As I'm winding down with the web site's construction, I encountered yet another refreshing addressing of Turkish arguments — and it's only fitting that I finish in the same way I began... by rebutting Dr. Papazian.


"Misplaced Credulity"


Professor Dennis Papazian

Professor Dennis Papazian

  Dr. Papazian's essay is entitled, "Misplaced Credulity:" (that's a good title!) "Contemporary Turkish Attempts to Refute
the Armenian Genocide
." It appeared in the Armenian Review 45, no. 1-2/177-178 (Spring-Summer 1992), and was revised in 2001. You can read the professor's rebuttal (by clicking on the link above, on his university's web site) to a letter by Turkey's then-ambassador to the United States, Sukru Elekdag, which appeared in the September 21, 1983 issue of The Wall Street Journal, under the title "Armenians vs. Turks: The View From Istanbul."

(Hm. I just realized, if Dr. Papazian's rebuttal first appeared in 1992, how come the professor picked an old 1983 letter to do battle with? The Turks were just beginning to counter the long, long years of Armenian propaganda in 1983, and the choice of Western sources to back them up weren't yet widely researched and available; surely there could have been a more current position with better sources Dr. Papazian could have targeted to try and tear apart. That is, assuming Dr. Papazian desired to put his best foot forward in truly vanquishing "Contemporary Turkish Attempts to Refute the Armenian Genocide.")

 The professor begins by claiming, "In the mid-1980s, the Turkish government's denials became more frequent and more strident, in part no doubt because Armenian extremists, beginning in 1973, brought the Armenian Genocide back into public light by the assassination of a number of Turkish diplomats in various parts of the world."

It's true — the Armenian assassins (the word "assassin" better befits a murderer... an "Armenian extremist" would be more along the lines of a Professor Papazian, whose sole job it is to "prove" the Armenian "Genocide," no matter what, rather than looking at the issue objectively, as a true scholar is duty-bound to do) did achieve their goal of bringing the genocide issue out in the open in a more prevalent way. However, the Turks did not say at this point, "Oh my God! We had better cover our tracks with lies, because the Armenian assassins are making us look bad." The Turks already looked bad — thanks to their policy of keeping mum on the topic for ever so long, in the mature interest of preserving brotherhood instead of harping on the injustices committed by both sides in the conflict. Only when the Armenians got murderously too fanatical did the Turks finally wake up and decide to present the truth to the world.

Does Professor Papazian truly believe the Turkish government began to work with public relations firms to present a version of events that is false? If he believes that, why is he ignoring and misrepresenting certain fundamental points of the conflict, such as the Armenians' revolt (he has the audacity, in this site's "Armenian FAQ" page, to call Armenian actions "self-defense"... and then, at another point, he contradicts himself by claiming the Armenians were "unarmed") and the Malta Tribunal, when the Ottoman Empire WAS tried for genocide.... by prosecutors who were the enemy (wishing to wipe Turkey off the face of the map), and by researchers who were primarily Armenian ?

I'm a Turkish-American with no contact with the Turkish government, and few contacts with other Turks. I'm making up my own mind by looking COMPLETELY at what both sides have to say. This is why I'm presenting the best of what the Armenians and their supporters cite as their evidence, and I welcome essays like Professor Papazian's, who at least makes some effort in countering the real issues. (Instead of just generally complaining of Turkish "lies" and Turkish "denials," without seriously getting into what those "lies" really ARE.) The Turkish government has finally gotten around to presenting the Turkish side in a serious way (thanks to the stupidly counter-productive Pandora's Box-opening Armenian assassins, who let the real cat out of the bag) not because the Turks are trying to cover their tracks (if they were to engage in maintaining a lie, they wouldn't be able to come up with all the many verifiable sources), but because they know it is the TRUTH. And it's not just the Turkish government, but many Western academicians and scholars who know the truth when they see it. (Those who dare to speak of the truth, anyway... Armenian retribution, with their capacity for destroying reputations or even lives, is rarely far behind.)

"This denial by the United States State Department could only amaze the informed public inasmuch as it was American officials and ordinary American citizens in the Ottoman Empire who had provided President Woodrow Wilson's administration, and indeed the whole world, with overwhelming eyewitness and photographic accounts of the tragic events..."

How informed is a public who had only been exposed to one version of an event? My classification for that would be an "uninformed" public. If people want to conclude an Armenian Genocide took place once they objectively balance both sides of the story, that would be fine — but then, and only then, could they be called "informed." For the nth time, the professor demonstrates his unprofessional bias... not that he hasn't shown his stripes already, by now.

Those overwhelming eyewitness accounts (uhhh... I wouldn't call the photographic accounts "overwhelming." The origins of many of the photos of skeletons and victims one sees in Armenian web sites cannot be accounted for, and Armenians are known to fashion any scene of horror for their own purposes. Besides, shots of suffering and malnourished, or even dead, people don't prove a government-sponsored genocide... famine, for example, did not discriminate among the citizens of the Ottoman Empire; even Turkish soldiers, the first line of defense, were subject to starving to death) were almost always presented by missionaries (who could not be classified as "ordinary Americans"), or missionary and Armenian-influenced U.S. consuls, who like the boss, Ambassador Morgenthau, already had a built in racist bias against the Turks.

Are we all clear on what an "eyewitness" really means, by the way? (It's not this, but this.)

There is also an abundance of contemporary newspaper accounts and journal articles that appeared in the American press.

Yep. Reams and reams of them, in fact. It would be nice to believe the journalists responsible for such articles were fair, objective and professional... just as it would be nice to believe all professors exhibited such honorable qualities. The American arm of Britain's propaganda-producing Wellington House did a thoroughly good job of sending out their fabricated reports to the people and organizations that had the power to mold opinions, and the newspapers among them simply swallowed wholesale these  one-sided and racist reports.

Nevertheless, even reputable newspapers such as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal were caught off guard by the Turkish public relations offensive and were quick to accept Turkish denials. Caught between Armenian claims and Turkish counterclaims, these national publications were finally driven to do their own research in order to develop an informed opinion. The New York Times had no farther to go than its own archives; and it was confronted with the choice of either repudiating its own historical record or accepting the Armenian position. It soon dropped the word "alleged" from its articles.

I owe Professor Papazian a debt of gratitude for teaching me why The New York Times stubbornly insists on the reality of the Armenian "Genocide." I recall running into an April 4, 1985 editorial of theirs (entitled "The Sorrows of Armenia") where nearly half of the piece was comprised of Turk-friendly Stanford J. Shaw & Ezel Kural Shaw's figures. I wondered WHY America's most prestigious newspaper still wound up labeling the events as a genocide when there surely was much evidence to at least cause serious doubt. Now I know. The New York Times did not want to come across as admitting the many false reports they blindly printed during the World War I era were without merit, as it's not like they would have erred with just one or two articles... but, embarrassingly, reams and reams of them. It's said that it takes a big man to admit responsibility, so the newspaper decided not to be a big man. It would be safer to stand by the accuracy of such reports rather than compromise the newspaper's credibility by "repudiating its own historical record." So it's either this explanation, or The New York Times honestly believed all their past articles were based on truth... unbelievable articles such as this one.


On the Other Hand... (ADDENDUM)

According to an ANCA press release of April 17, 2004
("NEW YORK TIMES REVISES POLICY ON ARMENIAN GENOCIDE"), the biased newspaper had NOT dropped the word "alleged" in its articles, as Dr. Papazian reported. Here are parts of the release:

According to a news release by the International Association of Genocide Scholars, The New York Times revised guideline for journalists states that "after careful study of scholarly definitions of 'genocide,' we have decided to accept the term in references to the Turks' mass destruction of Armenians in and around 1915." The policy goes on to note that "the expression 'Armenian genocide' may be used freely and should not be qualified with phrasing like 'what Armenians call,' etc."

For more than two decades, the ANC, working with its network of grassroots activists around the country, initiated several nationwide campaigns to press The New York Times to end its practice of dismissing the Armenian Genocide as simply an Armenian historical claim. Armenian Weekly editor Jason Sohigian has written extensively to the New York Times, working to provide timely information and input to the editorial staff.

Last year, the ANC of Eastern Massachusetts spearheaded the successful effort to urge the Boston Globe to suspend its policy against the use of the term "genocide" when referring to the Armenian Genocide. The decision was made in July 2003, setting a precedent for its parent company - The New York Times - to reexamine its policy.

Man, those Armenians are busy, busy, busy! Of course, The Boston Globe was susceptible to all of their propaganda, originating from the city that has historically been the most Armenian-friendly in the United States... but doesn't The New York Times have a reputation to uphold?

The side of Truth and Turks has no chance. When Holdwater recently tried to get The Times' ombudsman's ear, the response was that they would consult with... Peter Balakian!

At any rate, as far as Dr. Papazian's accuracy, it might be possible The Times temporarily decided to go with pure genocide, and later flip-flopped. On the Other Hand... Dr. Papazian could have been wrong. Not like it would have been the first time.

The Wall Street Journal, lacking its own historic account, assigned a member of its editorial board, Dr. James Ring Adams, to do a three-month study of the evidence. The fruit of his research appeared in a series of three articles which were published on the editorial page in August 1983, the second of which was entitled "Facing Up to an Armenian Genocide."...(He wrote): "In spite of the scholarly trappings, the Turkish defense relies on discrediting all contemporary Western accounts as war-time propaganda and all incriminating documents as Armenian forgeries. So the Turks must make liars of men like Henry Morgenthau, American ambassador to Turkey from 1913 to 1916; of the great English historian Lord Bryce; and of his young research assistant Arnold Toynbee."(14)

How much counter-evidence did Dr. James Ring Adams cover? In 1983, the Turks were just beginning to provide their side of the story.

We can already see the bias and ignorance of Dr. Adams when he presents Morgenthau, Bryce and the young Toynbee as being beyond reproach. The Turks only make liars of men when their credibility is in question. Anyone who looks at the psychology and motivations of "Christian" influenced Americans or wartime propaganda-causing Britons must question their credibility. The Armenians make liars of men when they make it their business to assassinate their character; such as when Armenians falsely claimed Judge Sam Weems, the author of the book, "Armenia — Secrets of a 'Christian' Terrorist State," was a "convicted felon."

Ambassador Sukru Elekdag in 1999

Ambassador Sukru Elekdag in 1999

  These conclusions reached by Adams, despite his simultaneous strong condemnation of Armenian "terrorism," moved the ambassador of Turkey to the United States, Sukru Elekdag, to issue an extensive rebuttal in the form of a letter to the editor which the Journal conscientiously published on September 21, 1983, under the title "Armenians vs. Turks: The View From Istanbul."

What person in his right mind would not condemn the murdering of innocents by Armenian terrorists? Only the Armenian community has been supportive of the actions of these murderous cowards, regarding them as heroes... just like in Armenia, when that nation's president and religious leader presented the mass murderer and "Jew Hunter" General Dro with full state and military honors in 2000. Ambassador Elekdag's not being entitled to rebut the conclusions of Dr. Adams because Dr. Adams condemned terrorism is like saying PBS' "The Great War" should not be criticized for its biased "genocide" segment since the first segment on Gallipoli was fair to the Turks.

As a matter of fact, Elekdag has brought together in one place all the arguments proffered by his government over the decades first to deny and then, by a twist of logic, to justify the Armenian Genocide of 1915-16.

Those "decades," at the first writing of Professor Papazian's article in 1992, was barely over one lousy decade... regarding  available Turkish arguments. (Again, in 1980, the director of Washington's Holocaust Memorial Museum had nowhere to go to get the Turkish view, and turned to little old me.) If he used the word "decades" for the revision of his article in 2001, then we're talking about still only two lousy decades. At the time of Ambassador Elekdag's writing of his letter, 1983, I would say that would equal, what? Less than half a decade?

It is surprising, in light of Elekdag's appeal for good scholarship, that the ambassador should have made so many small errors of simple fact. The Adana massacres did not take place in 1906, but in 1909. It was Sidney Bradshaw Fay, not Fey, who wrote The Origins of the World War. It was Cyrus, and not Cyril, Hamlin who was president of Robert College. And, inter alia, the United States did not declare war on the Ottoman Empire, and it is impolitic, to say the least, for Elekdag to maintain that the United States ambassador considered Turkey "the enemy."

Well, this is why we have conscientious scholars as Professor Papazian to nitpick over these small inaccuracies, such as the misspelling of "Fay" for "Fey."

(Although the U.S.'s declaring war on the Ottoman Empire was a big inaccuracy, if that's what the professor's opponent claimed, über alles. Uh, I mean, "inter alia." Since I don't have a copy of what Amb. Elekdag wrote, I cannot be sure. I think what Prof. Papazian is telling us is that SINCE the two nations were not at war, it was wrong for Elekdag to maintain Morgenthau considered Turkey as "the enemy.")

However, let's keep in mind who Ambassador Elekdag was. Ambassador Elekdag was one of the lone voices during the 1980s who would throw a dinky little life raft against the (if I may borrow from Professor Mahmut Ozan) "tsunami" of Armenian Propaganda. How much help did Ambassador Elekdag have to check and counter-check the tiny little details? I get the impression he was just another Turk, despite his official position, trying to gather the available facts and figures, on his own. I could be wrong about this, but I don't picture an immense headquarters in Washington's Turkish embassy working night and day to dot every "i." (Unlike the forces the pro-Armenians had, and have, at their disposal.)

Who cares whether classifying Morgenthau as one considering Turkey as the enemy was "impolitic"; if it was true, that's all that counts. Judging by Morgenthau's published articles and books, he was virulently anti-Turkish. Not just a little bit, now.... but virulently! And, among other things... uh, I mean, "inter alia"... in 1915-16, while the U.S. was not at war with any of the Central Powers, let's not forget one does not need a formal declaration of war to be considered an enemy (More on this point, below); by no stretch of the imagination was the U.S. looking upon the Ottoman Empire as "the friend."

Furthermore, we should take note of the fact that Henry Morgenthau, the American ambassador to Turkey, did not, as Ambassador Elekdag claims, rely "on selected missionary reports and communications translated by Greeks and Armenians who could hardly have been disinterested parties." Morgenthau, as is well known, relied primarily on official reports written in English by his own experienced native-born American consuls and consular agents stationed in various cities of Anatolia and Greater Syria and that of honest American missionaries who were scattered all over the Ottoman Empire.

The reader unfortunately cannot witness the beautiful spectacle of Holdwater rolling his eyes so far upward, only the whites could be seen.

WHO do you suppose those "experienced native-born American consuls" relied on, for the most part, but reports from missionaries and Armenians? The only one who I'm aware of, at this point, who ventured out to check the massacred bodies out for himself was Leslie Davis... the Armenian "big gun" featured on PBS' many pro-Armenian programs. (Let's not forget the Turks don't deny there were massacres... only that there was a government-sponsored policy of extermination.) However, with the little bit of information I've so far managed to gather on Mr. Davis (all from Armenian sources), I'm not convinced he was always on the up and up.

I invite the reader to examine the thought process of one of these consuls... George Horton, who wrote "The Blight of Asia." I don't know the personalities of each of the other consuls, but I have the feeling Mr. Horton's unbelievable racism and religious bigotry (not unlike Morgenthau's... these two men were peas in a pod) would not have been an isolated case.

These men relied on the claims of missionaries and Armenians/Greeks. If they didn't journey out of the comfortable confines of their consular offices, who else were they going to rely on? "The enemy"?

Note the way the professor contradicts himself: first, he says, "Henry Morgenthau... did not... rely "on selected missionary reports..." Then he writes, "Morgenthau... relied primarily on... reports... of honest American missionaries." All in the space of the same paragraph! We have to assume this conscientious scholar would never want to deliberately mislead us, so we must conclude he has slipped up with a "small (error) of simple fact."

As far as the "honest American missionaries"... we'll be getting to that incredible assertion in a moment.

When the Earl of Crewe replied on October 5, 1915, in the House of Lords to the Earl of Cromer’s question as to whether H.M.’s Government had received any information confirmatory of the statements made in the press in relating to "renewed massacres of Armenians," he based his information on a report of the British Consul at Batum, which in turn relied on a Tiflis newspaper, probably The Horizon, "an Armenian propagandist organ and therefore quite unreliable."

C.F. Dixon-Johnson, British author; the above is an evaluation of his 1916 book, "The Armenians." While the consul in question is not American, it provides insight as to how all Western and Armenian-sympathetic consuls derived their information.

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.

That's interesting. I hope that's true. No source has been provided, and given Ambassador Morgenthau's willingness to play fast and loose with the facts, I can't imagine his heart would have been in this directive. (Assuming he gave such a directive at all, which I would doubt.) After all, Henry Morgenthau blindly allowed his Armenian aide to rewrite his own letters and reports, and he allowed his ghost writer to use quotation marks for statements coming out of the mouths of Ottoman officials (in Ambassador Morgenthau's Story) which was a definite unethical no-no, for what purports to be a historic account.

ADDENDUM, 3- 2007: Papazian was wrong again! One of the more ethical consuls, W. Hollis Stanley (Beirut, 1911-17), complained that while he "confined [him]self to statements of actual fact ... such reports of facts and actual occurrences were not well received by the Embassy." Hollis explained that Morgenthau's Armenian interpreter "largely influenced" the U.S. Embassy.

  When Sultan Abdulhamit II, known in history as "the Damned" or "the Bloody Sultan," came to the throne in 1876...

Whose history was that? History is a matter of perspective. Alexander the Great, for example, is looked upon as something close to "the Damned" by Iranians. However, the ancient Macedonian conqueror is revered in Greece.

The new Messiah of the Ottoman Empire: Abdul Hamit II; probably a cinema still, from the British book, GRAND TURK

Pictured in the obscure 1942? British book, "Grand
Turk," this still is apparently from a movie
(ADDENDUM '06: yes! See "Abdul the Damned")

 Abdulhamit massacred hundreds of thousands of Armenians throughout the Empire during his reign...

Let us give a little backdrop, here.

In 1880 the Turk-hating Gladstone became Prime Minister in England. Two years earlier, Britain had sent military Consuls to the main eastern provinces (to supervise reforms and to monitor the Russians), just like we know the American Consuls to have been scattered throughout the Empire in the early Twentieth Century. The Armenian Patriarch said to the British Ambassador (Sir Henry Layard) in 1877 that he would be behind rebellions to gain the attention of Europe. Layard reported intrigues originating from abroad were inciting the Armenians to rebel against the Babiali (F.O. 424/74, No. 388).

 Whether Abdul Hamid deserves the black reputation that has been pinned to him is a matter for debate. If he was “the bloody assassin” and the “red Sultan” to most people, he was the hard-working, conscientious, much harassed but personally charming ruler to others. Those who have spoken for him have pointed out that the Sultan felt his Empire threatened by the Armenians, who, he knew or at least believed, were in league with the Young Turks, the Greeks, Macedonians, etc. They believe that Abdul Hamid was the victim of what we moderns call a persecution complex.

William Langer, The Diplomacy of Imperialism, 1968

Holdwater: In fact, Abdul Hamid actually pardoned his would-be Armenian assassins, when they attempted to bomb him in 1905; can you imagine? U.S. President Ronald Reagan did not pardon his would-be assassin... how many leaders would find it in their hearts to pardon somebody who was trying to KILL them? Perhaps the Sultan was not such a bad man, after all.

Captain Clayton, the Consul at Van, wrote in his  Oct. 12, 1880 report that Russian Armenian associations were readying to send weapons to Ottoman Armenians, and by year's end that the Russian Consul-General claimed the Armenians were preparing to revolt. Erzurum's Consul, Everett, provided similar information.  Izmir's Consul, Col. Wilson, wrote the Armenians were desirous of using force. Armenian revolutionary societies would spring up, like 1878's "Black Cross," similar to the Ku Klux Klan. The Revolutionary Hunchak Party, formed around 1886, had as its first goal to obtain the independence of Turkish Armenia. In 1890, the Revolutionary Armenian Federation, or Dashnaks, came into being, a terrorist organization since its inception.

The British Consul at Erzurum, to a question put forth by Sydney Whitman (Turkish Memories, 1914, p. 94) said "not one Armenian would have been killed" had Armenian revolutionary committees not incited the people to revolt. A New York newspaper correspondent reported on the ridiculous embellishments of Armenian tales of woe in his 1895 booklet, The Armenian Troubles and Where The Responsibility Lies. Sirs Edwin Pears and Mark Sykes, who were likely Armenian sympathizers (the latter wrote the propaganda booklet for Wellington House, "The Clean Fighting Turk: a Spurious Claim" to mar the honorable image of the Turkish soldier), had thoughts on these revolutionaries as well.

In 1895, there were 22 provocations throughout different provinces of the empire in the last three months alone. In Diyarbakir, the second of November, shots were fired on Muslims praying in the mosque, and a fire was later started, destroying mosques and shops, 90% of which belonged to Muslims. (Carton 313, File 70, 10/28/1311 telegram). The last incident of the uprisings, on August 26, 1896, was the famous raid on the Ottoman Bank, which was mercilessly bombed. Secretary F.A. Baker wrote, "Their hatred of the Turks was beyond all description...it had been their (the Dashnaks') intention to kill all the Turks." (F.O. 424/188, No. 174, enclosure 4.) The Dashnaks would attempt the assassination of their sultan on July 21, 1905. Had they succeeded, Abdulhamid would certainly have correctly been called "the Bloody Sultan."

(Interestingly, the Sultan pardoned the assailants.)

C. F. Dixon-Johnson sheds further revealing light on what transpired with the Ottoman Bank attack:

"A cry went through the city that the Armenians had risen in revolt and were massacring the other citizens. Many persons armed themselves with cudgels and, joined by a cosmopolitan mob from Pera and Galata, many of whom were Greek anxious to pay off old scores on their hated commercial rivals, wreaked vengeance on the Armenian population. The soldiers and police took no part in the killing. It is estimated that about 1,000 persons perished, including those killed by the bombs and revolvers of the conspirators."

Well! Many of the murderers of the Armenians were GREEK!

A British journalist comments on a 1989 four-volume work entitled, "British Documents on Ottoman Armenians" that Professor Papazian could have consulted to get the lowdown on the true nature of the Armenians during the 1890s, if he were a true scholar. The journalist concludes, "The Armenian revolutionaries were doing their best to incite incidents throughout Anatolia and in all the incidents the aggressors were Armenians."

The period starting with the 1890 Erzurum incident and ending with the 1896 Van rebellion is known as the period of massacres.  The Armenian deaths:

Nalbandian: 50,000-300,000.

David Marshall Lang (The Armenians, a People in Exile, 1981): 200,000, between 1894-1896.

Pastermadjian (1949), 100,000-110,000.

J. Misseskian (or Missaskian, A Searchlight on the Armenian Question, 1950): at least 300,000.

Lord Bryce ("Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire," 1916, preface): "More than" 100,000 (in 1895-96).

Vahan M. Kurkjian (A History of Armenia, 1958, p. 296), 100,000;
mentions British Blue Book "conservative estimate": 63,000.

Johannes Lepsius: 88,243. (Armenia and Europe: An Indictment, London, 1897, 330-31; in a preface entitled “A Later Note,” xix, Lepsius added another 10,000 or so to the total,)

The Dashank terrorists of the Ottoman Bank takeover, in their demand note: 100,000 (up until August, 1896), as related in Christopher Walker's Armenia: The Survival of a Nation, p. 165.

The estimate of the great powers: 50,000, from Walker's book; footnoted British source: "Turkey no. 2 (1896), p. 210. " (An extra 6-7,000 msy be added for 1896, per "Bliss" entry, below. Gurun's honest accounting for 1896 is an extra 3,715, per last entry for "The Ottomans' figure, below.)

German ambassador (Dec. 1895 account): 60,000-80,000.

G. Hepworth, "Through Armenia on Horseback": 50,000.

Bliss: 35,032, or approximately 42,000, when the 6,000-7,000 dead from the 1896 incidents are added.

A. W. Terrell, American Ambassador: 37,095, as of 4 Feb. 1896; or approximately 44,000. (US Nat'l Archives, Rec. Grp. 59, Despatches from United States Ministers to Turkey, 1818-1906, Microfilm Publication M46, roll 61, enc. 796)

"[Abdul Hamit] caused some 30,000 Armenians to be massacred in cold blood by the savage Kurds, not because he disliked them as a race — his own mother was an Armenian — but because he thought that they were becoming politically dangerous, and because he wished to nourish the spirit of Pan-Islamism with a little Christian blood." Sir Ellis Ashmead-Bartlett, With the Turks in Thrace, 1913, p.42.

“[N]o more than 29,000 Armenians killed,” Hans Barth, “Die Turkenhetze,” Die Zukunft 5, no. 16 (Jan. 16, 1897), 132; this article from the weekly journal was later expanded into a book entitled, Turke, Wehre Dich! ("Turk, Defend Yourself!") 2nd printing (Leipzig, 1898).

The Ottomans' figure for 1895: 8,717. Adding 3,715 (Van: 1,715 and 2,000 for the Ottoman Bank) and 1,000 for Zeitun, the total becomes 13,432.

"...Even if we are to include the Armenians killed by the bullets of the Armenian rebels as having been killed by Turks, the number of Armenians who died during the rebellions in the 1890s will hardly reach 20,000," wrote Kamuran Gurun, in The Armenian File, where almost all of the above information was taken. "There is a great difference between 20,000 and 300,000...it would be fair... to remember how many people lost their lives in rebellions or disorders in their own or other countries, and think how much right they have to use the term massacre."

Gurun estimates the number of Muslim dead during these rebellions in a two-year period is not less than 5,000, most killed without provocation, so that the rest would be aroused to attack the Armenians. "This is the real murder, the real massacre."

Lending support to the lower figure is the excellent 1895 report British Captain C. B. Norman prepared, "The Armenians Unmasked." As one example among others, Captain Norman wrote that "only five lives were lost" in a town (Berecik) where 2,000 Armenians were supposed to have been murdered. While the Armenian teacher Thoumanian stated that 800 had perished in the riots of Amasya, "A German resident and an Armenian merchant, both present during the disturbances, fixed the number at 53." As regards the number of the destitute, the author asserts that one-tenth of the Armenian Patriarch’s estimate was true. The captain further wrote that "none of these (massacre) stories have been corroborated by a single European eye-witness." (GEE! Just like in the 1915 "genocide." A 1916 British counterpart to Capt. Norman during World War I was the aforementioned C.F. Dixon-Johnson, who reacted to a similarly falsified massacre story in "The Armenians" as such: "How 25,000 Armenians could have been sent from Mersin out of a total Christian population of 7,279 [at least one-half of whom were Greeks], is difficult to understand") Captain Norman's 1895 report is an incredibly eye-opening one, and provides the near-exact blueprint to Armenian tactics and treachery during the 1915 "genocide."

Which is correct, Kamuran Gurun's less than 20,000, or Dennis Papazian's "hundreds of thousands"? Regardless of the figure, it's inherently dishonest of the Armenian professor to make it appear as though "The Bloody Sultan" just decided to kill off the poor, helpless Armenians on a whim.

Abdülhamid II

The real Abdülhamid II had a big schnozolla.
Was it perhaps the genes of his Armenian mother?

  Now the ironic twist: the Committee of Union and Progress, having managed a successful revolt against the Sultan, soon turned on the Armenians, their former confederates. Before their revolution, the C.U.P. had preached Ottomanism, in their view a kind of multi-nationalism with all peoples of the empire equal under the law. After a coup d'état in 1913, following the disaster of the Balkan Wars, the C.U.P was captured by a radical nationalistic clique that demanded "Turkey for the Turks." The clear implication of this new radical nationalistic, if not out-and-out racist policy, was that the minorities, especially the Armenians, who were the most internally integrated of Ottoman Christians, had to be eradicated. (20)

As much as the Armenians love to insist what made the Ottomans turn on the Armenians (in the Armenians' desperate search for MOTIVES) was simply the Turks' racist bent, it would have been ridiculous for the Turks to have engaged in a systematic extermination of their Armenians during the matter-of-life-and-death war years, to target such an important national resource as the Armenians. Maybe some of these C.U.P. members had mad dreams (there are extremists in every administration; Attorney General John Ashcroft is one during the American administration of George W. Bush, zealously chipping away at American freedoms and liberties), but I have yet to run into reliable evidence where the Young Turks utilized such as a matter of national policy. Dr. Papazian's footnote leads to primarily Armenian references, which is odd, since it should not have been difficult for him to find some of the omnipresent non-Armenian Armenian-sympathizing sources. Because Armenians are so into the distortion of truth, anyone would be a fool to accept what they have to say at face value, unless their facts are verified by clearly impartial sources. However, let us examine what one of the two non-Armenian sources in the footnote had to say. Robert Melson, whom I presume is non-Armenian (although I can imagine his actual name to be "Melsonian"), "believes that although Armenians and Jews were given a difficult time in previous regimes, only in the revolutionary C.U.P. and Nazi regimes would they be subject to genocide." EXACTLY! So then the $64,000 question is.... why weren't the Ottoman Jews subject to genocide? Professor Hovannisian was caught off guard with this question in 1988... here is how he responded.)

(ADDENDUM: After writing the above, I got a much better bead on Robert Melson. He, along with a few other non-Armenian professors, are suspiciously more "Armenian" than the Armenians themselves!)

(ADDENDUM. 1-08: Regarding the distastefully put remark made in the caption above, as to whether the Sultan's mother was Armenian, here is one man's opinion on that subject:

"The prophecy used to be current (though it has long died out in the development of the Mohammedan revival) that the Empire of Turkey was to end with an Armenian Sultan, and this was the Armenian Sultan. This strange saying was explained in several ways, some of them too scandalous for belief or quotation ; but the best attested account was that his mother was an Armenian by birth, who had adopted Mohammedanism. This account, widely believed in 1880-1882, is given as indubitable in the North American Review, Sept., 1896, p. 280, by Dr. Cyrus Hamlin, who knows Turkey from thirty-five years' residence as few men know it. In more recent years the authorised statement is that the Sultan's mother was a Georgian or Circassian—people vary as to the exact race. The important point is that every one recognises how essentially unlike Turkish is the Sultan's character; and every one feels that the explanation lies in the inheritance from his mother. For my own part, the Armenian origin seems to me proved by the results : only Armenian parentage gives the clue to the Sultan's character, his unwearied carefulness, his prevision, his personal timidity (which keeps him always a prisoner within his own palace walls), his fear of the Turks, his hatred for the Armenians, and the other qualities already described."

Impressions of Turkey During Twelve Years' Wanderings, William Mitchell Ramsay ["Professor in Aberdeen University"], London, 1897.)

Ambassador Elekdag maintains that Toynbee, in the penultimate book he wrote, Acquaintances, repudiated his earlier view of a premeditated, government sponsored massacre of the Armenian people, repented his earlier bad opinion of the Young Turks, and made a final confession of his earlier error. Furthermore, Elekdag uses Toynbee's Acquaintances to show that Lord Bryce's Blue Book was intended to serve as an instrument of British propaganda--with the implication that it was a dishonest and untrustworthy piece of work.

Professor Papazian cites passages from "Acquaintances" showing Toynbee was not 100% with the Turks. Could be. I haven't read "Acquaintances," but I'll bet if I had a copy, I could find passages that would prove damning to the Armenians.

The young Arnold Toynbee's services were solicited by Lord Bryce for their nation's W.W.I. propaganda arm, Wellington House. Here is what Professor Justin McCarthy says, in his excellent overview of the insidious doings, behind-the-scenes:

The Wellington House brief was simple, the same brief as that of all propagandists. They were to make the enemies look as bad as possible and make their friends, and especially the British themselves, look as good as could be. Their main focus was, naturally, Germany, but much effort was expended against the Turks. Propaganda was not considered to be a gentleman's game. Toynbee himself remarked that he would like to get out of it for that reason. Nevertheless it was something that had to be done and British gentlemen did it. They were probably always ashamed of their work, however, as indicated by the fact that they destroyed all the records of the Propaganda Office immediately after the war.

Dr. Papazian can quote Toynbee's declarations of innocence as much as he wants... Toynbee's conscience was likely very compromised, as he obviously knew he was engaged in the presentation of false information. It would be human for anyone to want to be seen in as good a light as possible, and therefore make all kinds of excuses (the champions of that part of human nature are the Armenians themselves).

Arnold Toynbee, many years later

Arnold Toynbee, many years later

  Day in and day out, Toynbee must have received horrifying reports from sources such as Morgenthau and the missionaries (yes, the honorable Ambassador Morgenthau cooperated fully with the gang of false information-spreaders: Bryce, Toynbee and Lepsius)... even if the young scholar and later-to-be-respected-historian realized (at the time, or later) that many of the reports were nonsense, how could he not have been affected by the cumulative effect of such unimaginable horror stories? Even when I read these amazing concocted tales of the worst atrocities and brutalities the human mind could conjure up (in Armenian & Greek web sites, of course) my eyes start glazing over, and I start thinking, why, those miserable Turks! Toynbee's deeply-rooted belief system must have been affected, as Dr. Papazian quotes him as having written: "The deportations [of the Armenians] had been carried out by orders from the Government at Istanbul..." Well, what were these orders? Such orders are exactly the kind of magical "smoking gun" Armenians are in a tizzy to get a hold of... so much, they have made up such orders, for lack of any in existence. If Toynbee knew of such definitive orders that were legitimate, do you think they would have not been used at the Malta Tribunal, when the British were desperately searching, far and wide, for legitimate proof? For two-and-a-half-years, going as far as the shores of America? Via a team of Armenian researchers?

If the Blue Book is faulty, then those faults must be pointed out. Otherwise, the work must be accepted as evidence.

I'm hearing a familiar tune. Can you all hear it? Yes, it's the "Armenian AND? Anthem"!

Can't blame Professor Papazian too much... it must be gut-wrenching to dismiss such a deliriously delicious anti-Turkish work of B.S., after it had worked so beautifully to pull the wool over the eyes of many in the past... and still can work to obscure the truth, as long as "responsible" scholars such as Professor Papazian can help to keep what's left of its integrity alive.

One sign of Toynbee's questionable credibility is that he reportedly gave the figure of 761,000 as Armenians living in
Anatolia in his 1915 book, "Nationality and the War." After being positioned in the Propaganda Department of the British Ministry of Defense in 1916, the figure Toynbee gave in his Blue Book was 1.5 million... DOUBLE. (The Armenians of the Ottoman Empire were mainly concentrated in Anatolia.)

Yet, in a letter said to have been written by Toynbee (that I came across in an Armenian web site... of course), the historian had the gall to provide the following validation for the phony-baloney Blue Book:.

It is true that the British Government's motive in asking Lord Bryce to compile the Blue Book was propaganda. But Lord Bryce's motive in undertaking it, and mine in working on it for him, was to make the truth known, and the evidence was good: the witnesses were all American missionaries with no political axe to grind. So the Blue Book, together with Lepsius' book, does give a true account.

With... no... political... axe... to... grind..?


It is difficult to fathom that Toynbee must have honestly believed these words. If he really meant what he said, I suppose we must conclude even smart people can delude themselves... but this level of delusion would be mind-boggling. After the war, Toynbee knew the Blue Book was largely discredited. And Toynbee had to realize the missionaries' motivations were far from honest.

Missionaries failed to convert Turks; their resulting axe to grind combined with their already built-in bias against Muslims led to their documented fired-up charges in blind sympathy with the Armenians, their fellow Christians who were more open to conversion to Catholicism and Protestantism. The missionaries' "political" aim: the more they made the Turks look like monsters, the more they appeared as heroes back home, and the more money they could bilk from their Christian brethren.

The poor character of the missionaries have been attested to by many Western observers. U.S. Rear-Admiral Kirkland called them a "bad lot," and questioned the credibility of their appeals.  Regarding the "unutterable" horror stories the missionaries (and Armenians) made up, C. F. Dixon-Johnson quoted Odysseus:

"These are often spoken of as being so terrible that the details cannot be given in print, but I believe them to be largely the invention of morbid and somewhat prurient brains. Medical testimony makes in certain that no human being could survive the tortures which some Armenians are said to have suffered without dying."

  Doesn't that hit it exactly on the nose: "morbid and ... prurient"; sexually repressed religious zealots often have an amazing inclination to imagine the most hideous scenarios, familiar to most of us who have an awareness of the warped and wicked witch hunters, from the Middle Ages. (I don't know how true this figure is, but the silent film, "Witchcraft Through the Ages" claimed eight million lost their lives over the course of two centuries, through such persecutions. Even if the actual figure was much less, it would still be a far cry from the handful I'd have imagined burned at the stake, here and there.) And it's just like Mr. Dixon-Johnson says... how could ANYONE have survived these unimaginable and disgusting stories? How could there have been even a single Armenian survivor!

And yet, for example, when Albert Mackenzie (a maniacally Turcophobic member of, most likely, the Near East Relief) attempts to "verify" an inconceivably horrifying account (reported in the great Lord Viscount Bryce's "The Treatment of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire"... better known as "The Blue Book"), he manages to find a survivor from this particular "deportation." (Once again, for those who respect the English language: What happened to the Armenians was a "relocation," or "resettlement." A deportation means to expel or banish a resident outside a country's borders.) Mind you, we are told there were only 185 survivors making it to Aleppo out of the original 21,000 (!)... and given what the story had them unbelievably suffer through, not many of the 185 could have lasted very long. If all of these unfortunate souls were so completely wiped out, what would the chances have been for any survivor to be found? UNLESS... could it be possible there were many more survivors than we are customarily told?


Aurora Mardiganian somehow survived The Terrible Turk, and went on to act out her claims in RAVISHED ARMENIA; supported by the Near East Relief organization, to increase further contributions to the charity

Aurora Mardiganian somehow survived The Terrible Turk

 Then there is that incredible survivor who overcame all odds, when "four millions" poor Armenians perished, Aurora Mardiganian... who would go on to star in 1919's RAVISHED ARMENIA. (That must be her on the poster. No, I mean the lily-white one, not the monster holding the sword.) Her co-star would be the self-christened hero of the Armenian people, the egomaniacal  Ambassador Morgenthau. himself.

We're not done with the unconscionable missionaries; I'd just like to say I appreciated Toynbee's quote above, since I have not read the Blue Book (and I doubt I'd have the stomach to read it; however, I did make it through The Blight of Asia, so perhaps I don't give myself enough credit); now that I have learned that "the witnesses were all American missionaries," we can safely conclude the entire literary debacle is one serious exercise in baloney. (Rhymes with Frank Pallone, a U.S. "Armenian" politician in non-Armenian's clothing.)

Langer, using materials translated by his Armenian assistants, argues that the Armenian revolutionary parties at the end of the nineteenth century provoked the government of Abdulhamit in the expectation of massacres. Massacres of Christians, allegedly, would alarm the European powers and bring about their intervention in behalf of the dying Armenians.(30) We will not discuss the validity of the Langer thesis here...

What are you saying, Professor Papazian? Are you suggesting that the Armenian terrorist organizations did not have such a plan in mind? Even though this plan has been attested to by the many impartial Western, often anti-Turk British, sources mentioned above? Even though Armenian historians have admitted to such plans? Why are you using the word "allegedly," Professor Papazian? Have you no... (choke!)... honor?

For a historical overview of the motivations and roots of these Armenian revolutionary parties, consult Paul Henze's excellent study. Here, too, is an excerpt from William Langer's The Diplomacy of Imperialism.

Elekdag calls Cyrus Hamlin, the long ago president of Robert College in Constantinople, as a witness to prove the nefarious motives of the Armenian "terrorists" who, after all, he claims, tweaked Abdulhamit until he massacred the Armenians. First, we should note that Hamlin, a well-informed and honest man who served for many years in the Ottoman capital, died on August 8, 1900.(32) We cannot under any circumstances, therefore, accept his testimony on events after that date. Second, the actions of a few revolutionaries cannot be used, by any rational standard, as an excuse to destroy a whole people. The fault would be in Abdulhamit and not in the revolutionaries.

The most exaggerated Armenian estimate (listed above, at least) of the Armenian dead during the 1890s was 300,000, a figure that surely had no basis in truth, as much as Dr. Papazian figuratively froths in the mouth to have you believe it. (He would like you to believe probably an even higher figure, given his assertion of "hundreds of thousands" massacred.) Kamuran Gurun reasonably states the figure could not have surpassed 20,000. Even if you cannot bring yourself to accept that the barbaric Turks would not have been content with this comparatively much lower figure, and go with a figure presented by the Turk-hating German pastor, Dr. Lepsius (near 90,000), that would not entail the destruction of a "whole people."

Who killed the Armenians in the1890s? Was it Abdulhamid's governmental forces? NO, other than those who were not killed by fellow Armenians (we'll be getting to that in a second), it was mostly the enraged civilian Turks/Muslims, in retaliation for the Armenians' murder of their own. JUST LIKE DURING THE "GENOCIDE" PERIOD OF 1915.

Dr. Papazian can lay fault with "Abdulhamit and not... the revolutionaries" as much as he wants, but the fact remains that not one Armenian would have lost his life if not for the actions of these "few" revolutionaries. JUST LIKE DURING THE "GENOCIDE" PERIOD OF 1915.

As far as not accepting testimony from before the war years "under any circumstances," I beg to differ. (And that's putting it mildly. Let's say a young teen-ager inflicts physical harm on her father.  Would we strictly take the violent incident on its own merit and conclude the child is a monster, or would we look into the background to see if the father had reason to provoke the incident? Those who are into the truth would undoubtedly choose to investigate.) The Armenians' historical motivations and behavior are of vital importance to understand why they behaved the way they did during the war years; there is a pattern to their actions and methods of operation that was exactly the same during the "genocide" period of 1915 as it was during the 1890s and even the 1790s. Dr. Papazian is afraid to have the unwary and easily fooled not discover the history of his people's treachery.

There is testimony from Armenians themselves about the far-reaching effects of these terrorists. It's true, most Armenians WERE "good." However, what could the ordinary, loyal Armenian citizen do when these mad dog Hunchaks and Dashnaks sent very clear murderous warnings to the Armenian community but to keep quiet, cooperate, finance and comply? This kind of intimidation is still at work within the Armenian communities in the diaspora, today. Here is an excellent analysis, regarding the extent of Armenian vs. Armenian terror. So when Dr. Papazian makes it seem like, oh, they were just a couple of isolated revolutionaries, he is far from being forthright. As in the 1890s, it's terrible the innocent Armenians suffered during the "Genocide" period. However, when nearly the whole community is in support of their treacherous leaders, willingly or unwillingly, how could any government separate the wheat from the chaff? (Especially during the desperate war years, with enemies at four or five fronts, in a bankrupt nation with few resources to spare?) These terrorists fired the first shot, and the Ottoman Armenians' Muslim neighbors retaliated. Innocents died on both sides. None of this would have happened if the terrorist leaders did not muddy the waters (Again... Armenians and Greeks act, and the Turks... after usually and patiently bearing with the bad acts for a long while... react.) So, Dr. Papazian: as you already very well know, the "few" revolutionaries you speak of were not simply incidental, isolated troublemaking terrorists, like America's Unabomber. They were part of a full-blown network, and they had the support of the bulk of the Ottoman Armenians... even if some of these Ottoman Armenians did not want to give them their support. (Although many of them certainly gave their support enthusiastically.) If you want to lay blame for the "Genocide," painful though it obviously is, you must look in your own backyard.

Hamlin's last published article, to our knowledge, was printed in 1898 in the Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society...

In excerpts from this article, Dr. Papazian informs us Cyrus Hamlin pooh-poohs the actions of the revolutionaries and lays the blame of the massacres on Abdulhamid. I'm indebted to the professor for opening my eyes to this subject, as when I included (in this web site) Dr. Hamlin's 1893 article which appeared in The Congregationist, I thought he would be the rare missionary above the anti-Turkish propaganda. Well... once a narrow-minded missionary, always a missionary, I suppose.

Now I'm wondering how this "well-informed and honest man" could have made such a 180-degree turn, in essence, in the span of just a few years. First, he's genuinely concerned about the dangers of the Hunchaks ("...to the missionary work and to the whole Christian population of certain parts of the Turkish Empire." Hamlin doesn't give a rat's tail about the potential dangers to the Turks, the main victims of these terrorists), and the next moment — at least in the excerpts Dr. Papazian was kind enough to share with us — he makes it sound like the Hunchaks posed no threat, whatsoever.

The Armenian Viper

Animal indigenous to Armenia:
The Armenian Viper.

To be fair, we must admit that Ambassador Elekdag has unearthed one article that genuinely indicts the Armenians, even in context. It was written by Arthur Moss and Florence Gilliam and published in the Nation in 1923, long after the Genocide of 1915-16. But before we can accept their testimony, we must establish the credentials of the authors. Are they eyewitnesses? No. Are they scholars who have done serious research about the past? No. On investigation, we discover that Moss and Gilliam are two American expatriates of the '20s who edited a monthly magazine, called Gargoyle, which was published in Paris by expatriates who hated America. They are neither eyewitnesses nor scholars.

First, thanks must be extended to the professor in his desire "to be fair."

Now here is the Armenian mind at work: "Uh-oh. A rare Western viewpoint that runs contrary to the Armenian Con Job. Quick: How can we discredit the author so that we may ignore the message?"

The professor goes on to... hold on to your seats, everyone, this is good... cite the magazine's editor writing a somewhat sympathetic report regarding a Russian "ex-patriarch, Tikhon, awaiting trial in Moscow." Because Dr. Papazian finds what the editor of The Nation has to say objectionable, he concludes:

"...The opinions of the editor regarding the slandered Tikhon and that of Moss and Gilliam regarding the murdered Armenians are of equal accuracy and value, and are thus of little consequence as evidence."

Now doesn't that take the cake!

Getting back to the professor's condemnation of the article: are the authors eyewitnesses? No. However, neither was Ambassador Morgenthau, and yet Dr. Papazian has no trouble with accepting Morgenthau's word as the God-honest truth. Are the authors scholars who have done serious research about the past? "No."

How does Dr. Papazian know what kind of research these authors have conducted? Of course, he has no idea, and is merely offering his opinion.

Dr. Papazian complains their article is "less than two pages in length and unencumbered by any scholarly trappings." Since when does the length of an article determine its worth? And the professor needs to bear in mind this is a magazine article, intended for a general audience... such articles often don't have the luxury of sounding like an academic paper, loaded with footnotes.

As far as his snobbily dismissing the authors because they are not "scholars," is he implying people must have a Ph.D. before they can dare opine on the topic of the Armenian "Genocide"? That doesn't necessarily indicate the worth of an article. For example, Dr, Papazian must have a Ph.D., and his article is as biased as they come!

I don't know anything about this "Gargoyle" magazine the authors are said to have edited in Paris... but even if these authors hated America, which I'd doubt, how would that apply to the worth of the article? Is Dr. Papazian suggesting an author must love America in order for comments regarding the Armenian "Genocide" be valid? If such is the case, he must not have agreed with the decision of the French court to take Bernard Lewis to trial... and the misleading article about the trial's outcome that appeared in the French newspaper, Le Monde... since the French have a habit of turning up their noses at affaires d'Americane.

In their article, Moss and Gilliam deny the validity of the Bryce-Toynbee collection and write, apparently in all seriousness: "In Turkey, all three main religions--Mohammedanism, Judaism, and Christianity--are on an equal footing. . . . A Catholic cannot go as far politically in secular America as a Christian can go in so-called theocratic Turkey."

Artin Dadyan Pasha

Artin Dadyan Pasha, Ottoman Under-
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
(1880-1887), is alleged to have
worked more for the Armenian cause
than for the Sultan... probably when
he returned to the same position in
the early 20th Century...but the key
word here is "alleged."

  The authors dared to deny the fiction of the Bryce report by saying: "The Bryce reports have been proved to be without tangible evidence and to have been based entirely on hearsay." I've got news for Professor Papazian... the authors did not make this up. The Bryce reports were largely discredited in the immediate post-war years, as the report cited unreliable evidence...particularly what evaluators had a problem with were accounts of German atrocities in occupied Belgium during 1914. (Post-war evaluators mostly focused on the German allegations, because few cared about the Turks.) However, let's be frank here. It's not like this is the first time Professor Papazian has heard of this, so he needn't insult our intelligence by pretending to be so shocked. And as far as the claim about a Catholic's political possibilities in America that the professor finds so unbelievable... wasn't it widely believed that John F. Kennedy had the odds stacked against him in being elected president, by virtue of being a Catholic? As it was, he only narrowly won. And that was 1960... how many Catholics were in the political arena in 1923 America? Meanwhile, Ottoman Armenians held high positions in the government, especially in the 19th Century... such as the pictured Artin Dadyan Pasha. Let's get it straight, once and for all, Armenians and Greeks: the one thing you cannot fault the Ottoman Empire on (although the Nation article is alluding to today's very early Republic of Turkey, regarding this point) is lacking freedom of religion.

At any rate, the reader can judge the worth of the article that appeared in The Nation for him/herself. I just reread the article, and contrary to the attempted-wool-pulling-over-the-eyes views of the Armenian professor, the article was written most legitimately, and deserves credit for running contrary to the prevailing views of the time. (And this time.)

Elekdag boldly declares a war ex post facto on the United States in order to make Morgenthau officially an "enemy." Ambassador Morgenthau's Story, was, says Elekdag, "published in 1918 when World War I was raging and the Ottoman Empire was officially the 'enemy.' But, as a matter of fact, the Ottoman Empire did not declare war on the United States; and the United States certainly did not declare war on the Ottoman Empire... The United States did not even break off diplomatic relations with Turkey until 1917, not until after the Armenian Genocide was effectively completed, and then only to show its disapproval of the Turkish atrocities.

1918 was the last year of WWI and we all know Americans were active participants in the war by 1918... and we all know which side America was fighting for. Besides, must war be declared in order to be considered an enemy? By no means was the United States friendly to the Ottoman Empire even when she was a neutral state (I believe it was 1917 when the United States joined the war, but I didn't check; definitely by 1918); her sympathies lay squarely with Great Britain, a nation chiefly — among the Allies — desiring to wipe the Ottoman Empire off the map. British propaganda was freely used in the United States, the intent of which was to feverishly get the USA to join in the war against the Central Powers. The effectiveness of British propaganda grew astronomically when the British destroyed the cable from Germany to America; as a result, British censors controlled the news sent to the USA, and the German and Ottoman side were never heard. Not that hearing the Ottoman side would have made much difference... there was a deep-seated prejudice against the Ottomans, from a racial and religious perspective. Additionally, Ambassador Morgenthau fully cooperated with Wellington House, as he himself admitted in the Red Cross Magazine of March,1919: "Much of the material which I collected has already been published in the excellent volume of documentary material collected by Viscount Bryce." The attitude of the United States toward the Turks was clearly that of an enemy, and Professor Papazian is pathetically grasping at straws, here.

Elekdag appeals to the testimony of Admiral Mark Bristol of the United States Navy.

The professor attempts to completely discredit the admiral by painting a portrait of him as a racist and a liar. How sad. (Even a man who might have hated Turks more than Dr. Papazian, if such is possible... U.S. Consul George Horton... said about Bristol: "honest, brave, generous, with frank and winning manners.") Admiral Bristol was leagues apart from a man like Morgenthau, because Bristol looked at the area's players with an even-handed view, which is what Dr. Papazian cannot stand; he is so spoiled with the true racists like Morgenthau (Bristol saw through the "Myth of Innocence" of the Armenians and Greeks, and rightly criticized them. For that, he is branded a racist and pro-Turkish. Morgenthau did not even regard the Turks as human beings, in his writings), and their unabashed championing of the Armenian cause, he must do whatever he can to discredit men like Bristol. Turk-hating men like Morgenthau were the unfortunate rule during this period; that likely includes his successor, whom Dr. Papazian goes on to later cite.

I already addressed Dr. Papazian's problems with Admiral Bristol in the Armenian FAQ page. If the reader wishes to learn what kind of a man Bristol was, turn to the long, private letter he wrote to James Barton. The man's integrity is clear to see. Meanwhile, you can visit the page dedicated to Ambassador Morgenthau, and judge from his writings what manner of man he was. A 1920 article he wrote for the Independent, "Shall Armenia Perish?" has been reproduced... and it speaks volumes about his incredibly biased attitude.

If tiny Armenia was truly the first Christian state on earth why in the world doesn't your state owned church teach love and forgiveness? Even in Christ's time there was the separation of church and state. Armenia must separate its church and state if the true message of Christ is to be taught there. This is why your church has engaged in terrorism from the mid-1800s up to and including this very day. The Armenian Church is nothing more than a front and an extension of your state run terror machine.

Devout Baptist Sam Weems, in response to Armenian Hate Mail

American missionaries were the flower of the New England and Midwest American intelligentsia...  Most of them had advanced degrees, and many were physicians... Missionary reports, selected or not, all tell the same general story: Armenians all over Anatolia were expelled from their homes, slaughtered and massacred, and the remnant driven into the Syrian desert to die... But did the American missionaries tell the truth? One would think so. We certainly will not join Elekdag to call these God-fearing men and women liars without seeing strong evidence to support that contention. Since Elekdag presents no proof to the contrary, we must accept the missionary reports as dependable evidence...

Good Lord. (And I don't mean Bryce.)

The professor is attempting to use the same rationale that hoodwinked the American public and their Christian sensibilities during the war years.

The conquistador Pizarro

Let's get something straight: to be "God-fearing" does not always make people moral and ethical. Historically, in fact, the reverse has too often proven to be the case. Torquemada was God-fearing. Cotton Mather was God-fearing. The priests who accompanied the conquistador Pizarro and dishonorably tricked the Inca god-chief, which led to the Incas' extinction, were God-fearing. Those who murder doctors who perform abortions are God-fearing. The Taliban is God-fearing. His Holiness Karekin II, Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians, who honored the cowardly mass-murderer and "Jew-Hunter" Dro (in an official 2000 ceremony), is God-fearing.

(More often, those who are not crazily God-fearing are much more moral and ethical.)

If these missionaries were the product of intelligentsia, all the more reason why their lack of scruples was so shameful.

Professor McCarthy: "Propagandists could play upon the great respect Americans held for the missionaries who had gone to the Ottoman Empire, and who often appeared in the newspapers as national heroes for a Christian Nation... Studying what they preached unfortunately takes a long time. You must read much truly disgusting literature. What they wrote was not what one would expect of clergymen. Yet one reason they were so successful is exactly that people expected that clergymen would not lie."

For more, please visit the "missionaries" page.

Does Dr. Papazian not know the true nature of these missionaries? He is obviously a very intelligent man, and I have no doubt that he knows, very clearly. It's his duty, however, to maintain the "facade." What a shame the professor within him refuses to be objective.

innocent Armenians reported to be softening up Turkish positions, paving the way for their Russian allies' conquest of Van

These innocent Armenians are reported to be softening up Turkish
positions to better prepare their Russian allies' conquest of Van

(From "The Armenian Aspirations and Revolutionary Movements")


Yet, we will give Ambassador Elekdag every advantage. We will ignore Morgenthau's book, without just cause, and take testimony regarding Morgenthau from Heath W. Lowry... (who) ...has written a booklet called The Story Behind Ambassador Morgenthau's Story...
Lowry's booklet, unfortunately, just as Elekdag's letter, is marred by many errors.(53) For example, in one place Lowry states that Schmavonian "accompanied [Morgenthau] in all meetings with Turkish officials."(54) Then on the next page he writes that Schmavonian "accompanied Morgenthau on almost every official visit he paid to members of the Young Turk Government."(55) Finally, Lowry writes, quoting Morgenthau, that "Talaat told me that he greatly preferred that I should always come alone when I had any Armenian matters to discuss with him."(56)

While I believe that Lowry's booklet is tendentious and flawed, a full critique of it cannot be made here.

 Too bad I'm not on an airplane flight at the moment, because there is no paper bag within reach, and I feel like I'm about to throw up.

Shades of Ambassador's Elekdag's heinous error of "Fey" for "Fay"; it's Dr. Papazian's mission to try and point to a withering weed in the entire magnificent forest, in a desperate attempt to discredit the messenger of the damaging message. Dr. Lowry inadvertently omitted the word "almost" in the first example, but he corrected himself in the second example by writing, "almost all." So now, are we going to throw out Dr. Lowry's entire fine research and work, on the basis of this example... which Dr. Papazian classifies as "many errors"?

Everybody is allowed small, careless errors here and there. Look at Dr. Papazian. Believe me, I did not take a magnifying glass and scour through his paper to see where he had made mistakes... this one caught my eye coincidentally: a few paragraphs above this part of his discussion, his paper says (as of April, 2003... and talking, coincidentally, of Fay): "In any case, Fay's book is irrelevant and has been superceded by more recent scholarship." The correct spelling is "superseded."

That's not such a big deal, nor was Dr. Papazian's error in the "Armenian FAQ" page where he erroneously wrote Admiral Bristol began his term in Turkey in 1920, instead of 1919. (However, he made an unforgivable "mistake" when he claimed [in Part 16 of that page] 1.5 million Armenians were killed by the Turks when he had already claimed a figure of three million; sloppy. Very sloppy.)

Dr. Lowry

Dr. Lowry 

Dr. Papazian

Dr. Papazian

 At any rate, Dr. Papazian doesn't have the complete luxury to pull the wool over the eyes of his readers on THIS page.... readers can tune in on Dr. Lowry's work right here, and judge for themselves. What a "tease" Dr. Papazian is by stating Dr. Lowry's work is "flawed" and that he can't make a "full critique" here. What's stopping him from making it elsewhere? [ADDENDUM: In a 2005 correspondence, Dr, Papazian claimed he had made a critique.] Dr. Lowry went through the meticulous trouble of examining Morgenthau's private letters and diaries... his research is impeccable. Naturally, Dr. Papazian and his cronies can never hope to try and discredit Dr. Lowry enough, just as they have all historians... unwilling to goose-step to the Armenians' tune... in their sights.

 First, Lowry quotes a letter written by Morgenthau to President Woodrow Wilson on November 26, 1917, in which Morgenthau informs Wilson that he is considering writing a book about Germany and Turkey: "For in Turkey we see the evil spirit of Germany at its worst--culminating at last in the greatest crime of all ages, the horrible massacre of helpless Armenians and Syrians."(57) This letter should be clear enough. Morgenthau sincerely believed that the Germans were guilty of aggression and that they were a bad influence on the Turks. There is certainly nothing untoward in this. Morgenthau sincerely believed both to be factual.

Where does Dr. Lowry claim Morgenthau was being "untoward," regarding the aggressive nature of the Germans? Dr. Lowry is citing evidence on Morgenthau's motivation for embarking on his book: "...His sole aim was fostering public support for the United States war effort by writing a work of anti-German, anti Turkish propaganda which would 'win a victory for the war policy of the government,' he not surprisingly received it." When you attempt to critique something, don't forget to stick to the facts, Professor. ("The facts"... hoo-boy. Must have forgotten whom I'm speaking to.)

While the diary does not have the literary elegance of Ambassador Morgenthau's Story, its meaning is unambiguous: Talât confesses through his own interpreter, not a Greek or Armenian, to Morgenthau that he wants to kill all the Armenians in Anatolia and that three quarters of them are already dead. Nothing could be clearer.

census figures for Ottoman-Armenians before the war

The Armenians claim one million survived.
Subtract that from the 1.0 to 1.5 million
Armenians who lived in the Ottoman Empire. Now
conclude: was Talat Pasha lying when he estimated

Armenian losses at 300,000? Is there any chance
he could have told Morgenthau over a million
Armenians were dead? Wasn't Morgenthau the liar?

The incriminating passage from Morgenthau's diary has Talat Pasha saying they had already "disposed" of three-fourths of [the Armenians], and that "they would take care of the Armenians at Zor and elsewhere but they did not want them in Anatolia." So, out of an original Armenian population within the Ottoman Empire, before the war, of 1.3 to 1.5 million (actually, neutral estimates varied from 1.0 to 1.5 million, with a median average of 1.3 million), "nothing could be clearer" than that "three quarters of them are already dead." So Talat Pasha, who stated at his own Congress of the Union and Progress Party that the Armenian losses were around 300,000, suddenly "confesses" to Ambassador Morgenthau that from around 1 million to one-and-an-eighth million Armenians were dead.

Gee, Dr. Papazian. We both know that many Armenians REALLY didn't die. Particularly by August 8, 1915. I mean, look, it wasn't even Ataturk's turn to massacre all the Armenians, in years to come, as your pal Dr. Marashlian cited in one of his papers.

If it took over a couple of thousand years for Armenians to have reached a worldwide population of three million before the war, just about every single one of them tracing their roots back to Anatolia, how in the world could Armenians have mushroomed up to seven million (an Armenian site claims ten million) in just eighty-ninety years, if their population was so wiped out? If Talat Pasha really believed that, he must have been out of his mind... certainly he would have been out of his mind to confess this to Morgenthau, of all people, whom Talat knew had a direct line to the propaganda mills.

Whichever word Talat Pasha's translator used, is it possible Morgenthau's final understanding of the word "dispose" could have meant getting rid of the Armenians not in the murderous sense, but in the "cleaning out" (which also could mean "to kill") the Armenians from the regions where they stirred up trouble?

If you had honestly gone on to report what Dr. Lowry was getting at with the second part of your stating "nothing could be clearer" (alluding to the line, "they would take care of the Armenians at Zor and elsewhere but they did not want them in Anatolia," the meaning of which you conclude is that Talat "wants to kill all the Armenians in Anatolia") you would not have ignored Dr. Lowry's point ... when Morgenthau went on to report that a whole month after the above-mentioned conversation with Talaat, he received a visit from...

"Zenop Bezjian, Vekil (representative of the Armenian Protestants in the Ottoman Empire)... called. Schmavonian introduced him; he was his schoolmate. He told me a great deal about conditions [in the interior). I was surprised to hear him report that Armenians at Zor were fairly well satisfied; that they have already settled down to business and are earning their livings; those were the first ones that were sent away and seem to have gotten there without being massacred..."

Dr. Lowry writes, "All comments in Ambassador Morgenthau's Story notwithstanding, as late as September 1915, Morgenthau had not firmly concluded that the Armenians were the subject of an attempted 'extermination'..."; he further asks, " Why does Morgenthau not challenge Talaat on this statement (regarding Zor) because it is not out of keeping with what he is hearing at that time from others..."

That's assuming if Dr. Lowry interpreted Talat's saying "they would take care of the Armenians at Zor" as meaning whether they would "whack" them, like the Sopranos, or whether "take care" means to actually "take care." (To my ear, the latter meaning is clearly being alluded to.) Based on the Armenian representative's words, recorded by your God, Henry Morgenthau, the Armenians at Zor were being very well taken care of.

The real question is, since you have come face to face with Dr. Lowry's irrefutable findings of the true nature of Morgenthau and his phony book, based on all the inconsistencies with Morgenthau's own diaries and letters (a portion of the latter of which were written by his Armenian secretary, which compromises their credibilty), why are you still urinating in your pants trying to find something.... anything... to discredit Dr. Lowry's findings, and not acting like a real professor, who would objectively consider factual proof in the interests of true scholarship?

I realize the approval of your community is foremost in your list of priorities, but it's not only Armenians who will judge you. Turkish opinion wouldn't matter to you, I know... but what about the opinion of everybody else? The real truth is going to come out, probably when you are no longer still around... but doesn't it bother you how people will judge you then, on the basis of your work, which is all you will have speaking for you?

The third wartime German ambassador at the Ottoman court was Count von Wolff-Metternich...German Vice-Consul Max Erwin von Scheubner-Richter...

Both of whom wrote incriminating passages regarding the Turks' treatment of the Armenians (they both use the word "annihilate" in their descriptions... whomever translated the original German [probably Dr. Vahakn Dadrian] sure liked to use the word "annihilate," which is a word that can only be used by someone with an agenda or one who is a sucker, since the majority of the Armenians survived); yup, among all the "evidence" the Armenians can muster to prove their life's blood Tall Tale, the Germans' testimony certainly does seem the most incriminating. Just like the Germans were the allies of the Turks, so were the Russians the allies of the Armenians....and they, too, would have had no reason to lie when they reported on the disgusting atrocities committed by the Armenians. The difference is, these Russians' reports were from the actual field... they were genuine eyewitnesses; the two German examples above are an ambassador and a consul, like Morgenthau and George Horton, neither of whom ventured out to check things out for themselves... and settled on listening to the biased reports of others.

Guess what... Dr. Papazian isn't the only scholar hell-bent on presenting the Armenians' lopsided views. There are many others, certainly not all of Armenian origin. I already tackled the German connection when I rebutted Dr. Roger Smith regarding the ambassador-count... and, on the same page, Mike Joseph (as he brought up the Vice-Consul). On the Questions page, I also observed the German issue.

I wonder what the professor has to say about the many Germans who bitterly accused Armenians of backing the Russians, as evidenced, for example, in Kress von Kressenstein, Friedrich Freiherr: Mit den Turken zum Suezcanal, Berlin 1938, p.132 ... and Germans who accused Armenians for bringing forth their own relocation, by providing assistance to the enemy.  (Pomianowsky, Joseph: Der Zusammenbruch des Ottomanischen Reiches. Erinnerungen an die Turkei aus der Zeit des Weltkrieges. Zurich 1928 p. 174.) Here's something I never came across before: according to Pomianowsky, due to the epidemic diseases spread by the Armenians, around 1.000.000 Moslems, and a great number of soldiers, succumbed to these Armenian-spread diseases and died. Hmmm. That latter charge sounds a bit wild, but no more wild than the Germans Dr. Papazian loves to quote.


What can be said of scholars working on the Armenian 'genocide,' who, in publication after publication, over the past decades quote the outright lies and half truths which permeate Morgenthau's 'Story' without ever questioning even the most blatant of the inconsistencies?

Dr. Heath Lowry
"The Story Behind Ambassador Morgenthau's Story"

We should remember that James Ring Adams argues that Elekdag must "make liars of men like Henry Morgenthau" in order to prove his case...

Not so difficult, when the lawyer-turned-ambassador was a shameless liar of the first order.

"It is to be hoped that the future historian will not give too much heed to the drivel one finds in the books of diplomatist-authors," wrote George A. Schreiner,  in his "The Craft Sinister: A Diplomatico-Political History of the Great War and its Causes, (G. Albert Gayer, New York, 1920)"; Schreiner criticized Ambassador Morgenthau in a scathing letter, aware of the Ambassador's fabrications in "Ambassador Morgenthau's Story." Dr. Heath Lowry came across George Schreiner's violent reaction, where he wrote the ambassador his comments should not be taken as "a declaration of war"... and since Mr. Schreiner was on the field as a renowned American War & Political Correspondent, he was much more in a position to know the facts than the stashed away, bigoted ambassador with an agenda. Even though Dr. Papazian came across this source when he criticized Dr. Lowry's "Story Behind Ambassador Morgenthau's Story," he chooses to overlook it. Not that an objective evaluator would solely need Mr. Schreiner's testimony to conclude Morgenthau was a man not of the highest character.

 Holdwater is Getting Tired...

One could spend a lifetime rebutting the likes of Dr. Papazian.

Leslie Davis

Leslie Davis 

He next brings up Leslie Davis... the Armenian "Big Gun" used to full advantage in at least two Armenian T.V. programs presented by America's Public Broadcasting and Armenian butt-licking station, PBS (The Great War and Armenia — Survival of a Nation)... and another U.S. Consul, Edward I. Nathan. I have yet to "meet" a U.S. Consul, shaped by my terrifying first impression of U.S. Consuls in the Ottoman Empire (in the person of insanely Turcophobic George Horton, who wrote "The Blight of Asia"), who is not a religious and racist bigot prone to swallowing wholesale the fabricated stories of missionaries and Armenians, many of the latter whom they employed. The only "positive" Consul report I have encountered thus far, shedding light on some semblance of objectivity they might have carried, was from the aforementioned Consul Edward Nathan... whose words I included on the very bottom of the Leslie Davis page.

Interestingly, in the footnote Dr. Papazian has provided for the damning words of Consul Nathan... (dug up by a "Hairepetian"... there is a whole ARMY of them working day and night to come up with something... ANYTHING...), the date was from August 7, 1915. ("The incredible terror created by the Turkish authorities.") The "nice" report from the very same Consul Nathan ("The government organized this process in the most orderly fashion; and that the Government did not allow any act of violence or disorder, provided sufficient number of tickets to the immigrants and assisted those who were in need") is from just a couple of weeks later.  (Aug. 30, 1915; the above has been paraphrased, and is not an exact quote. From Realities on the Armenian Immigration - 1915, TTK [Turkish Historical Society] Publications, Ankara, 2001. Source: "EUM, File 2D/13 [see Document 664]") At that point, I presume the Turkish authorities must have finished reading "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde."

The Armenians have perhaps 40-50 full time professionals in Washington D.C. doing nothing but working each and every day to undercut Turkey and Azerbaijan and promote themselves for more foreign aid taxpayer funding. Turkish Americans have -0- staff and office working for them in Washington DC. The Turks really should do more to protect themselves. All they have to do is tell truth!

Judge Sam Weems

  Finally, if Ambassador Elekdag will grant that Ambassador Morgenthau could read, without translations by Greeks and Armenians...

Since Dr. Papazian makes an issue of this point several times, I must tell him he is correct. Morgenthau did not need his Armenian translators for reports written in English by his own U.S. Consuls. (Even if these reports were not written in English, Morgenthau would still have understood perfectly.... since he and the Consuls "spoke exactly the same language," if you will; as they were men cut from the same cloth. It wouldn't be until Admiral Mark Bristol's arrival that an American would have the integrity to look at the situation in an even-handed manner.)

However, the real point is this: both Armenians in Morgenthau's employ worked as translators. Hagop Andonian (mostly secretary, sometime translator), whose contributions the ambassador wrote were "indispensable," actually had a hand in writing Morgenthau's own letters... in Morgenthau's name... which Morgenthau wrote "relieves me of all responsibility for any error." (I wrote that line from memory, and just took the trouble of checking it.... I didn't want Dr. Papazian to discredit me for saying "all.") Later, when Andonian accompanied Morgenthau to America, he was close enough to Morgenthau for the former ambassador to get him out of the draft, and even accompanied Morgenthau to the movies (wonder if they ever caught RAVISHED ARMENIA, starring the egomaniacal Morgenthau himself). The other Armenian, Arshag Schmavonian, was perhaps even closer to Morgenthau's heart, based on the loving descriptions Henry wrote in his letters (which one presumes the jealous Andonian would not have had a hand in.)

Morgenthau relied on these two men completely. They were his eyes and ears. What do you think would be the natural result of that? For example, one of today's countless Turk-haters with web sites is a Mr. Rudy Brueggemann. After going through the standard "Turks are responsible for all ills on earth" routine, he reveals an Armenian friend told him this and that. Don't you think when you are in a foreign country... especially a notorious one like the Ottoman Empire where Morgenthau, like all Americans, only heard bad things about... would lean toward the claims of his friends, his Armenian friends, who could speak English and whom he could freely communicate with... rather than the savage, alien Turks?

Indeed, Woodrow Wilson, with a plentitude of information from all sources, was so moved by the Armenian plight that he advocated an American mandate over Armenia. On May 24, 1920, the president sent a message to the Senate seeking consent to take up that duty. In his official message, Wilson wrote: "I ask this not only because [the mandate resolution] embodied my own convictions and feeling with regard to Armenia and its people, but also, and more particularly, because it seemed to me to be the voice of the American people, expressing their genuine convictions and deep . . . sympathies. . . . The sympathy with Armenia has proceeded from no single portion of our people, but has come with extraordinary spontaneity and sincerity from the whole. . . . At their hearts, this great and generous people [the Americans] have made the case of Armenia their own."

I don't know what THAT proves, but President Wilson, a preacher's son, was one of the best friends Armenians ever had. (Especially when he kept using the word "sympathy." The quickest way to an Armenian's heart is to offer him sympathy.) Woodrow Wilson could be a naive man, as his Allies would find time and again. Certainly, he believed in the whirlwind of B.S. supplied by beloved missionaries, beloved Armenians, trusted U.S. representatives... all on top of the expertly-engineered  anti-Turkish & anti-German British propaganda mill that America EXCLUSIVELY heard (Since the Brits cut the Germans' cable to America), by Wellington House's American branch, run by a Canadian. When you hear all bad and no good, over and over and over again, and especially if you are a devout Christian whose pre-existing anti-Muslim beliefs keep getting reinforced... who WOULDN'T be moved!

And how did the Armenians repay the best friend they probably ever had? Why, by attacking him... of course.

"Oh what a tangled web we weave / When first we practise to deceive!" — Sir Walter Scott, in his 1808 poem Marmion

Elekdag's final argument is that the Armenians were sympathetic to the Russians and had to be evacuated from the war zone in the east. However, a "removal of the Armenian population" from the "war zone" in the east, as Ambassador Elekdag claims, would have only included the provinces of Erzeroum (Erzurum) and Van in Turkey, and perhaps the areas of Kars and Ardahan in the Russian Empire.

Dr. Papazian goes on to report how just about how every single Armenian got "annihilated" (hey! That's a word his fellow Aryans allegedly loved to use, regarding the Armenians) through just about every inch of the Ottoman Empire. However, Ambassador Elekdag isn't lying.... almost all the Armenians who were affected were in the east-to central part of the nation. To prove my point, I already referred to this map (during my first rebuttal of the good professor, in the "Armenian FAQ" page) I dug up straight out of an Armenian web site. Check it out, especially with the comparative maps (above, on the same page) outlining where the Armenians resided.

Let's make one thing clear: the Armenians' treachery was not only limited to the east. During this desperate time, the exhausted, resource-less Ottomans were fighting with their forces widely spread out... from the east, with mortal enemy Russia at the gates, to the west, fighting French and British forces at Gallipoli, and as far south as Mesopotamia, among other fronts. It wasn't just the Russians making promises to the Armenians... it was the British, as well. In return, the Armenians did what they could to hamper Ottoman efforts at Gallipoli. It's a wonder that the entire Armenian community was not relocated. And as far as all the Armenians getting "annihilated".... this is why a relocation sufferer from Peter Balakian's family faces the incredible odds of meeting a fellow sufferer from presumably the very same march... a few years later, at (of ALL places) Saks Department Store in New York City! Some annihilation, all right; last time I checked, "annihilate" meant... well, here, I just looked it up: "To destroy completely; wipe out; reduce to nonexistence." Dr. Papazian, REALLY! The German ambassador and Vice-Consul some Armenian translator (perhaps Herr Dadrian?) likely put this word in their mouths may be excused, but how COULD you use the word "annihilate," in all.... (choke!)... good conscience? Now. I have been taking every single one of the professor's points without ducking anything... however, this page has consumed enough of my life, and we're getting near the end of his essay, anyway.

I'll take one more point, the only one out of sequence... which the professor makes to prove how legitimate the decisions were at the kangaroo courts established by the post World War I, non-elected Ottoman government totally at the mercy of the Allied forces. These ersatz courts barely presented any evidence, and their purpose was mainly political retribution. Almost every defendant was found guilty, sentenced for things as mundane as leaving a post without permission (that is, many cases had nothing to do with Armenian affairs), and perhaps even for leaving out the word, "almost" next to "all" ... and a good few were were executed. About the only value of these courts was that at least the Ottomans attempted some form of justice for crimes against Armenians, while neither Armenia (the country) nor Armenian guerillas ever tried their own criminals for horrible acts against Turks that are documented even by Armenians.

The prelude to the professor's bringing this topic up is:

 Finally, many people have asked: If there was a genocide, why was there not a war crimes trial following the war as there was following World War II at Nuremberg? Indeed, there was, and Elekdag makes reference to it.

  The REAL "Nuremberg" is, of course, not the fake courts by the puppet post war Turks — if we're looking for a true parallel, don't forget the Germans did not try the Germans at Nuremberg; it was the Allies who tried the Germans at Nuremberg — but the planned trial by the Allies (mainly the British).... in the form of the Malta Tribunal. This is the one where 144 Ottoman officials were imprisoned in the island of Malta for nearly two-and-a-half-years, while the British searched under every rock... with all the Ottoman documents fully available to them (before the nasty Turks got the chance to "purge" anything), under occupation as Istanbul was... with a team of mostly Armenians doing the research.... and going as far as the shores of America in a desperate search to find proof. REAL proof, as all the stupid Bryce Reports (produced by the British themselves; even the producers of that garbage did not give value to them), Morgenthau book, missionary lies, Aram Andonian forgeries of telegrams, newspaper articles... ALL were rejected, and every single Turk was allowed to go free, not only innocent of genocide, but of ANY war crime. THIS IS THE END-ALL ARGUMENT AGAINST THE MADE-UP GENOCIDE THAT NO ARMENIAN (that I've encountered) DARES TALK ABOUT... INCLUDING PROFESSOR PAPAZIAN.

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.

These trials were conducted by an Ottoman government scared out of its wits... to hold on to whatever little power that remained. Bayonets did not need to be fixed at the courtroom by British troops in order for these trials to be conducted.... the psychological mindset was already well in place. The spineless Turks in charge already made up their minds to be the puppets of the Allies, the reason why the Sevres document they went on to sign spelled the death sentence of the Turkish nation, and we all know practically no Turk followed this pseudo-government that did not represent them, immediately afterwards.







Furthermore, the fable that "Tsarist Russia incited Armenians to revolt by promising them the establishment of an independent Armenia after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire"(74) is totally without evidence. While it is true that Tsar Nicholas II issued pronouncements calling on the Armenians of Turkey to revolt, no such revolt ever took place! In any case, no Armenian would take seriously such a promise...


 "No such revolt ever took place!"

"No such revolt ever took place!"

"No such revolt ever took place!"

"No such revolt ever took place !"

"No such revolt ever took place!"

"No such revolt ever took place !"

"No such revolt ever took place !"


fable (fā'bel) n. A falsehood; lie


"West" Accounts


Armenian Views
Geno. Scholars


Turks in Movies
Turks in TV


This Site