Tall Armenian Tale


The Other Side of the Falsified Genocide


  An Honorable Armenian Speaks of Anti-Turkism  
First Page


Major Players
Links & Misc.



Mahmut Ozan
Edward Tashji
Sam Weems

Of the title below, in case you weren't sure, "Patria" means fatherland, or one's native land. Thanks to TurkishArmenians.

The article is followed by another article, Diasporan Armenian Organizations.

Patriotism Versus Patria

Vartan Harutiunyan

Our patriotism is nothing if not anti-Turkism, and the most patriotic Armenian is the most anti-Turkish. In general, for an Armenian, anti-Turkism and patriotism are directly proportional. The whole of our Soviet literature and art, the whole of our culture, bears the stamp of anti-Turkism, and is filled with grieving, tearful, suffering demands for Ararats, Sipans, Karses, Erzerums, and who knows where else, and with the representation of our centuries-long, victorious and resounding past.

We represent a past that begins and ends with defeat in glorious colors, uncritically and without examination, forgetting or not comprehending that we have real treasures — achievements in literature and art, which we have so squeezed and belittled by forcing them to fit within our narrow limits and world-view, which we have so failed to present to the world, that they appear faded, or don’t appear at all — and instead we speak arrogantly and vaingloriously about our age and our losses, seeking and finding the causes of our losses in our neighbors and in the world. Europe is presented as the betrayer of our interests — our neighbors, as the enemy. With no friends, no allies, it is we against the world. As though the other nations and states of the world have only friends. As though only we have no luck. All of this is the foundation of our entire culture of the 20th century, that is to say, the foundation we have been raised on. Wronged by the world and our neighbors, we demand and demand. We are the aggrieved, and we live for our grievances and our claims.

When all the nations that were under the Soviet dictatorship, from the Baltics to the Far East, were inspired by the opportunity that presented itself and began to demand independence and sovereignty, we began to demand not independence, but Karabakh, pitting ourselves against our neighbor, without considering that our dispute with our neighbor could be postponed, in the hope of solving it in the future, peacefully, as a dispute between two independent and sovereign states.

Instead, we have acquired an unsolvable problem, a weapon aimed at our two states that holds back our economic and political development.

Without thought, and without thought for ourselves, we demanded Karabakh and considered any expression of independence to be a provocation. We created the Karabakh Committee and made idols out of its members, none of whom had ever dealt with politics, making our blindness absolute and transforming the people into a mob, and we began the headlong regression that has gone on until today, and will keep on, because without ironing out the Kharabakh wrinkle, our National Intelligentsia, with the complete irresponsibility characteristic of the slave mentality that is theirs and theirs alone, continue to preach grievance to such a degree that today the most important foundation of our state foreign policy has become the Genocide, and as its consequence, grievance.

And there is none among them to say, let’s stop for a minute, let’s preach love and respect for our neighbors, in the hope of receiving love and respect in return. No, only Zeitoun, Ardahan, Van, Nakhijevan. Without thinking about the current and future potential of the state, without understanding that it is better to have a small but dignified state than two and a half to three million aggrieved claimants, constantly at war with their neighbors. Only aimless claims, Armenian patriotism (different from all others), weeping and wailing, cursing, complaining. Grievance is one of the two bases of the development of Armenian thought over the last 100 or 200 years, the other being the Genocide, with all its masochistic manifestations.


The intellectuals and public figures who served the dictators of all ages faithfully and till the end, who swore loyalty to all kinds of anti-human ideas and slogans, who are weak with longing for the old country, today, without having ended the war, are pushing us toward a new war. If only there were someone who would ask these patriotic intellectuals and their supporters, “What have you personally laid on the altar of the freedom of the homeland? What have you sacrificed? How many drops of blood? How many drops of sweat? How many battles have you fought? How many times have you been wounded? How many of your sons, not yet turned twenty, have you buried?”

Just don’t say that all those boys who were killed are yours. They belong to the mothers who go to Yerablur every Saturday, whose tears never dry. And have you been to Yerablur? How many times? We have borne Panjouni (trans. note — the name of the would-be politician in Yervand Otyan’s political satire of the early twentieth century, still used mockingly today) on our shoulders, crowned in glory, from the beginning of the 1900’s all the way to the 21st century, and now, fed on the milk of a huge empire for 70 years, Panjouni is sending us into battle, for no one’s sake but his own.

It was not by accident that during Soviet times we were allowed to engage in the propaganda of anti-Turkism and grievance; this was consonant with the wishes and plans that deprived us of statehood, that conquered us (through the fault and participation of our National Intelligentsia as well). Yet any statement — even a thought — spoken or written, about the restoration of statehood, about independent statehood, was reprehensible, and no “national” intellectual or public figure, no poet, no historian would even think of it, would even want to think of it. On the contrary, they were against independence; they did not want it (as if it were up to them). They swore allegiance to their masters every second, they considered the chance to go to Moscow the greatest honor, they chattered about the brotherly family and the true path of the beloved Party, and they would write a couple of lines about Van, Masis, or the ruins of Ani, figuring they had done their patriotic duty, as they had lost applause, decorations, and well-being.

The patriotism that seeks our future in the past, that doesn’t see the mistakes of our fathers and grandfathers, that deems it inadmissible to talk about these mistakes out loud, has always done us harm. This is how our grandfathers loved this country, and as a result of their love we shrank down to an imperceptible spot on the world map. We have inherited nothing from them but defeat and emigration. This is what happened. Matricide and patricide are absolutely not patriotism. Let us condemn Samvel (trans. note — the eponymous hero of Raffi’s novel, who killed his mother for the sake of his homeland) as we would if he were our neighbor, and go forward. Let our children look at us and at our grandfathers freely, critically and, why not, with irony. Let them laugh at our grandfather’s and our “clodhopper” patriotism, let them free themselves from it and create our state in accordance with their own ideas, the ideas of citizens of the 21st century.

To this end, our press and television might, without limiting human rights at all, avoid engaging in revanchist propaganda and sowing the hatred of neighboring peoples and states in our children.

The author, Vartan Harutiunian, is a prominent human rights campaigner and was a Soviet-era political prisoner.

Diasporan Armenian Organizations

The following are the thoughtful comments of a Diasporan Armenian blogger.

Unfortunately, it is not surprising that the Diasporan Armenian organizations have once again not only given a late opinion, but have expressed an opinion which perceives the people of Armenia not as an end of any means, but as a means to their own ends. For the people of Armenia, living in and being Armenian is not a question to be asked, an identity to be pondered, or a path to be chosen. Being Armenian, just is.

There are many kinds of Diasporan Armenians. There are those who self-identify as Armenian, though their families have lived outside of Armenia for many generations, such as many of the members of the community in Fresno, California. There are those who have permanently moved to Armenia since its independence; those who maintain their Armenian identity through the Armenian church; those who don't speak a word of Armenian but give financial gifts to Armenian organizations; those who identity is centered around their chosen Armenian political party; those only recently have emigrated from Armenia.

I should point out that I was born and raised in the Diaspora. I have, at different points in my life, been involved peripherally with these organizations. For a young Armenian growing up on the East coast of the US, with a strong Armenian background, there is absolutely no doubt that many of the organizations allowed not only a welcomed social structure but an easily accepted identity - organizations that would allow me to embrace both my American and Armenian identities, without making me explain myself. It was at an AGBU school that I learned the Armenian alphabet: at an AYF camp that I first studied the Armenian Genocide. For these reasons, and many more, I applaud many of these organizations, be they political or religious - they have played a pivotal role in maintaining and facilitating the Armenian identity for so many in the Diaspora. As a greater community, we rely on these organizations to help us maintain our identity, to help unify us and inform us.

Any organization which helps maintain an identity is at risk of providing an identity: instead of helping develop thought and ideas, it may direct or even replace the process. In a world where time is limited, the facets of life and its goals are many, these organizations, sometimes dangerously so, replace individual thinking and true debate with Party thoughts. This isn't necessarily always bad, but it must have its checks and balances system, like any other. And when that is lost, through sensationalism, guilt, or diversion, the tendency of ambition and power to overtake organizations can run unabated.

Time and time again, over the past 20 years, starting from the Kharabagh movement in 1988, the independence of Armenia in 1991, the different regimes of the past 17 years, and now the events of the past two months, those in the Diaspora not directly intertwined with any organization have seen what we thought were the fundaments of these organizations not only be debated, but traded, in effect, sold.

In effect, despite a plethora of beneficial programs, many of these organizations have lost sight of their goals - maybe it is my misunderstanding. I thought the Armenian Nation, including the people of Armenia, were an end for which there were many different means. It seems these organizations have become, or think themselves, the end for which they are the means.

What is more basic, and less political, than the following truths: a government opening fire on its own people, repressing media, denying the right to protest, implementing a policy of random imprisonment and beating.

Why is there even a question whether such actions should be condemned?

Have these organizations strayed so far from the dreams of their founding fathers that they cannot stand up for the rights of the citizens in Armenia?




"West" Accounts


Armenian Views


Turks in Movies
Turks in TV


This Site

...Is to expose the mythological “Armenian genocide,” from the years 1915-16. A wartime tragedy involving the losses of so many has been turned into a politicized story of “exclusive victimhood,” and because of the prevailing prejudice against Turks, along with Turkish indifference, those in the world, particularly in the West, have been quick to accept these terribly defamatory claims involving the worst crime against humanity. Few stop to investigate below the surface that those regarded as the innocent victims, the Armenians, while seeking to establish an independent state, have been the ones to commit systematic ethnic cleansing against those who did not fit into their racial/religious ideal: Muslims, Jews, and even fellow Armenians who had converted to Islam. Criminals as Dro, Antranik, Keri, Armen Garo and Soghoman Tehlirian (the assassin of Talat Pasha, one of the three Young Turk leaders, along with Enver and Jemal) contributed toward the deaths (via massacres, atrocities, and forced deportation) of countless innocents, numbering over half a million. What determines genocide is not the number of casualties or the cruelty of the persecutions, but the intent to destroy a group, the members of which  are guilty of nothing beyond being members of that group. The Armenians suffered their fate of resettlement not for their ethnicity, having co-existed and prospered in the Ottoman Empire for centuries, but because they rebelled against their dying Ottoman nation during WWI (World War I); a rebellion that even their leaders of the period, such as Boghos Nubar and Hovhannes Katchaznouni, have admitted. Yet the hypocritical world rarely bothers to look beneath the surface, not only because of anti-Turkish prejudice, but because of Armenian wealth and intimidation tactics. As a result, these libelous lies, sometimes belonging in the category of “genocide studies,” have become part of the school curricula of many regions. Armenian scholars such as Vahakn Dadrian, Peter Balakian, Richard Hovannisian, Dennis Papazian and Levon Marashlian have been known to dishonestly present only one side of their story, as long as their genocide becomes affirmed. They have enlisted the help of "genocide scholars," such as Roger Smith, Robert Melson, Samantha Power, and Israel Charny… and particularly  those of Turkish extraction, such as Taner Akcam and Fatma Muge Gocek, who justify their alliance with those who actively work to harm the interests of their native country, with the claim that such efforts will help make Turkey more" democratic." On the other side of this coin are genuine scholars who consider all the relevant data, as true scholars have a duty to do, such as Justin McCarthy, Bernard Lewis, Heath Lowry, Erich Feigl and Guenter Lewy. The unscrupulous genocide industry, not having the facts on its side, makes a practice of attacking the messenger instead of the message, vilifying these professors as “deniers” and "agents of the Turkish government." The truth means so little to the pro-genocide believers, some even resort to the forgeries of the Naim-Andonian telegrams or sources  based on false evidence, as Franz Werfel’s The Forty Days of Musa Dagh. Naturally, there is no end to the hearsay "evidence" of the prejudiced pro-Christian people from the period, including missionaries and Near East Relief representatives, Arnold Toynbee, Lord Bryce, Lloyd George, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, and so many others. When the rare Westerner opted to look at the issues objectively, such as Admirals Mark Bristol and Colby Chester, they were quick to be branded as “Turcophiles” by the propagandists. The sad thing is, even those who don’t consider themselves as bigots are quick to accept the deceptive claims of Armenian propaganda, because deep down people feel the Turks are natural killers and during times when Turks were victims, they do not rate as equal and deserving human beings. This is the main reason why the myth of this genocide has become the common wisdom.