Tall Armenian Tale


The Other Side of the Falsified Genocide


  The Efforts of Two Armenian-Partisan U.S. Congressmen  
First Page


Major Players
Links & Misc.



Mahmut Ozan
Edward Tashji
Sam Weems

 The two congressmen featured on this page, Frank Pallone and Adam Schiff, are tireless workers for the "Armenian Cause." Let's examine their recent efforts to get the latest genocide resolution passed. (Res. 106, dissected on this other page.)



Frank Pallone (rhymes with "baloney") truly groped down the bottom of the barrel by pointing to Henry Morgenthau, the U.S. ambassador to the Ottoman Empire during 1915. Morgenthau was a bigot, and a dishonest man to boot. Of course, on the surface, Morgenthau comes across as a beacon of integrity, because he was the U.S. ambassador. (Ironically, of course, the real one of integrity who served as the equivalent of U.S. ambassador from 1919 forward, Admiral Mark Bristol, is completely ignored.) That is what Pallone and his puppet-masters are counting on, but the rest of us know the real truth usually lies beneath the easy surface.

Even though Morgenthau's workings have been exposed through the excellent research of Prof. Heath Lowry, it is truly heart-breaking that he and his propagandistic "Story" book are still getting impressive mileage, particularly in the halls of the U..S. Congress.

Less than one week after his tribute to Morgenthau (July 12), Pallone then made use (on July 17) of the memories of a now-deceased Armenian woman, a mere child at the time of these events.

Holdwater's comments have been footnoted in most of this page's articles.


States News Service, USA July 12, 2007 Thursday WASHINGTON

The following information was released by the office of New Jersey Rep. Frank Pallone Jr.:

Rep. Frank Pallone

U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ,) co-chairman of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues, made the following statement yesterday on the floor of the House of Representatives remembering Henry Morgenthau, U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire from 1913 to 1916, and the first-hand descriptions [1] he gave of the Armenian Genocide, which began in that region in 1915. The New Jersey congressman plans to give a series of speeches on the House floor in an effort to continue to build support for the Armenian Genocide Resolution.

Earlier this week, the Resolution gained the support of a majority of House members.

"Mr. Speaker, the Armenian Genocide that was orchestrated by the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1918 [2] is an irrefutable fact. Looking at the history of this catastrophic event, it is impossible to deny that this was genocide [3] on all accounts. One way to hear witness to the truth is to make reference to first hand accounts [4] at the time the Armenian genocide occurred.

"Henry Morgenthau served with dignity as U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire from 1913 to 1916. [5] In the wake of surging nationalism in Turkey [6], and alarmed at reports of the Armenian genocide, he repeatedly appealed to the U.S. government to intervene, without success. Morgenthau addressed the genocide of the Armenians in a 1915 dispatch to the State Department in which he warned that "a campaign of race extermination is in progress." [7]

"He then appealed to Ottoman rulers, also without result. Finally, he publicized his opinions in his 1918 book of memoirs, Ambassador Morgenthau's Story, which documented his experiences while in Turkey, including his vivid views of the Armenian genocide. [8]

"Morgenthau wrote: "When the Turkish authorities gave the orders for these deportations, they were merely giving the death warrant to the whole race; they understood this well, and, in their conversations with me, they made no particular attempt to conceal the fact I am confident that the whole history of the human race contains no terrible episode as this." [9]

"In one of his addresses Morgenthau commented on the United States efforts during the Armenian Genocide, "If America is to condone these offenses, if she is going to permit to continue conditions that threaten and permit their repetition, she is party to the crime. [10]

These people must be freed from the agony and danger of such horrors.

They must not only be saved for the present but they must be given assurance that they will be free in peace and that no harm can come to them."

"At great personal risk and sacrifice, [11] Morgenthau chose to intervene on behalf of the Armenians and even managed to help rescue an unknown number of Armenians. Of course, in the end his efforts were unsuccessful. Drained by his failure to avert this disaster, Morgenthau returned to the United States in 1916 and for the remainder of World War I dedicated himself to raising funds for the surviving Armenians. He is considered a hero in Armenia and an American man of courage and character. [12]

"Mr. Speaker, if America is going to live up to the standards we set for ourselves, and continue to lead the world in affirming human rights everywhere, we need to follow Morgenthau's example. [13] We must stand up and recognize the tragic events that began in 1915 for what they were---the systematic elimination of a people. [14] By recognizing these actions as genocide we can renew our commitment to prevent such atrocities from occurring again. [15]

"I wish to express my support for swift passage of H. Res. 106 which reaffirms the Armenian Genocide. It now has a majority of the Members of the House as cosponsors. As the first genocide of the 20th Century[16], it is morally imperative [17] that we remember this atrocity and collectively demand reaffirmation of this crime...


July 17, 2007 Tuesday


BYLINE: States News Service


The following information was released by the office of New Jersey Rep. Frank Pallone Jr.:

U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ,) co-chairman of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues, made the following statement yesterday on the floor of the House of Representatives honoring the late Mrs. Haigoohi Hanessian, a survivor of the Armenian Genocide. This is the second in a series of speeches the New Jersey congressman plans to give on the House floor in an effort to continue to build support for the Armenian Genocide Resolution. Recently, the Resolution gained the support of a majority of House members.

"Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to discuss the irrefutable fact of the Armenian Genocide [18]. Looking at the history of this catastrophic event from 1915 to 1918 and the impact it had on the Armenian people, it is impossible to deny that this was indeed genocide on all accounts. One way to bear witness to the truth is to make reference to personal accounts when the genocide occurred at the hands of the Ottoman Empire. [19]

"Thousands of Armenians have their own account of the horrific events their own families had to endure. Tonight, I would like to tell the story of Mrs. Haigoohi Hanessian from Syracuse, New York.

"Mrs. Hanessian was born in 1906 in Taurus, Turkey. In 1909, her family fled from their home after receiving word that the Turks were leading a massacre on all Armenians in the area. [20]They took refuge in an American institution and finally returned to their home only to find it burned to the ground. After traveling and staying with family in different areas, they eventually moved back to Taurus.

"But, yet again in 1915, the Armenians were being exiled. [21] Her family was forced to board a train with an unknown destination. With thousands of others, they were herded onto these trains, confined in small boxcars for days with no food and no water. Mrs. Hanessian recalls that if someone died on the train, they were thrown off the train and were left on the side of the tracks. [22]

"When they finally arrived at their destination, they were placed in barracks. [23] She speaks of the sentiments towards the Armenians at the time, stating "they wanted all the Armenians to vanish from the earth. Instead of killing them, they suffered and died." [24]

"The Armenians were then marched through the desert towards Syria in extreme heat, again with no food and no water. On the way, many died and were left to rot. After they reached a small village in Syria, they stayed until they were told to move again. She remembers that "an order came from the General Headquarters that all the Armenians either be killed or deny their religion, and become Muslims." Many people converted to save their lives, while others died to preserve their faith. [25]

"The Armenians were forced to relocate from village to village. They were left with no money and no supplies and had to find ways to survive. She said "you couldn't get in touch with anybody ... [26] you didn't know what to do. We were hungry. It was terrible. We were all dying. We were just skeletons. No food, no nothing." [27]

"Unlike much of Mrs. Hanessian's family who died or disappeared in the genocide, she survived and was able to relocate to the United States and rebuild her life. She has since passed away, but not before she left her story behind. I am proud to be able to retell her memories -- which must never be forgotten. [28]

"Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my support for swift passage of H. Res. 106 reaffirming the Armenian Genocide. The resolution now has a majority of the Members of the House as cosponsors. As the first Genocide of the 20th Century, it is morally imperative that we remember this atrocity and collectively demand reaffirmation of this crime against humanity.

"By properly affirming the Armenian genocide, we can also help ensure its legacy and rightfully honor its victims and survivors, like Mrs. Hanessian."


1. Ambassador Morgenthau never left the environs of Istanbul during 1915, and he never saw anything "first-hand." Quite the contrary, all of his information was hearsay, provided by his Armenian interpreters, other Armenians, and the missionaries.

2. Vahakn Dadrian himself has instructed us, "...in 1916... the genocide had all but run its course.” Yet we don't need Dadrian to tell us this; the Ottoman officials first considered an amnesty for the Armenians in 1917, which would have been impossible if there was a genocide policy in the works. Armenians were already returning to their homes before being officially permitted to do so at the tail end of 1918. And let us not forget what Avetis Aharonian himself had written to Armenian Prime Minister Hovhannes Katchaznouni: "[T]he Armenian nation would never forget that it was the Ottoman Government which first conceived the idea of founding an independent Armenia, and recognized it." This was late May of 1918, when Armenia had come into being, well before the war had ended. Would Hitler have worked toward the establishment of Israel in 1944?

Yet Pallone will shamefully tell us the "genocide" had lasted until 1918. At least it is not as bad as what his partner-in-crime, Rep. Schiff, will claim, as we will see soon.

3. Before a person of integrity claims something, particularly if the something is a terrible crime, as an "irrefutable fact," one must possess the factual evidence. Pallone's laughable evidence in this instance: the unconscionable Henry Morgenthau. When one does not have the evidence, it is hardly "impossible to deny that this was genocide"; in fact, it is the duty of the honorable person to do so.

4. If Henry Morgenthau is Pallone's idea of a "first-hand account," then Pallone is making it especially easy for the rest of us to nail him as one who regards real facts as meaningless. Aren't U.S. congressional representatives required to take an oath to uphold justice?

Hagop S. Andonian, Armenian right hand man

Hagop S. Andonian

5. If a diplomat allows his Armenian assistants to write letters in his name (as Morgenthau directed Hagop Andonian, writing that it also relieved him "of all responsibility for any errors"), I don't how how much "dignity" such a diplomat would possess. A U.S. ambassador is also expected to serve in objective fashion. (Morgenthau shared his "Armenian" information with Lord Bryce and Johannes Lepsius, helping them to prepare their own deadly works of propaganda. Morgenthau was supposed to be representing a "neutral" power at the time.) For the record, Morgenthau served until January 1916, which means that he was not really around for the year of 1916.

6. Practically every minority of the Ottoman Empire was surging in "nationalism," except the Turks. The Turks in charge believed in and hoped to preserve "Ottomanism," stressing a heterogeneous outlook, as with the United States of America. Nationalism only took place with the Turks when the nationalism of the treacherous minorities helped destroy the Ottoman Empire, as when many Armenians and Greeks openly sided with the enemies of their nation and became "belligerents de facto." The Turks were forced to become nationalists in the early 1920s, in order to save their own necks. (Morgenthau himself wrote in early 1915: "The Turkish people have so little spontaneous patriotism or enthusiasm of any kind.")

7. Yet Morgenthau himself testified in early 1915 that the Ottoman government was practically nonexistent. When there is weak central command, it is difficult for a federal government to implement a plan for "race extermination." Morgenthau added: "Among the subject races the spirit of revolt was rapidly spreading. The Greeks and the Armenians would also have welcomed an opportunity to strengthen the hands of the Allies." That gives evidence against "genocide"; any nation would have taken steps to counter a rebellious and treacherous part of their community. The USA and Canada had done so in WWII even when their Japanese were not disloyal. Britain and Russia had done so in WWI even when their German men/Germans were not disloyal. Henry Morgenthau also happened to write (in May 1915) that "...It would seem as if an Armenian insurrection to help the Russians had broken out at Van," estimating the number of Armenian insurgents as high as 25,000.

8. In November 1917, Morgenthau provided his reason for writing his "Story" book: "We must win a victory for the war policy of the government and every legitimate step or means should be utilised to accomplish it." In other words, the idea was war propaganda. His "efforts to make the Turks the worst being on earth," as George Schreiner criticized Morgenthau regarding his book, served an additional purpose: knocking out the Ottomans would hasten the path to a Jewish homeland in Palestine. (Morgenthau accepted his Ottoman post, which he considered demeaning, largely at the urging of his Zionist friend, Rabbi Wise.) At the time of writing his "The Story Behind Ambassador Morgenthau's Story" in 1990, exposing Morgenthau's lies through Morgenthau's own private letters and diaries, Prof. Lowry asked: "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?" We might excuse such bigoted ignorants back in 1990, but nearly a whole generation has passed. So when Frank Pallone points to this vile propaganda and its dishonest author today, what can be said about Frank Pallone?

9. Yet Morgenthau himself was surprised in September 1915 when an Armenian representative informed him that "Armenians at Zor were fairly well satisfied; that they have already settled down to business and are earning their livings." If the majority of Armenians were still kicking by the end of the war, under Ottoman control, how could there have been a death warrant? (The Patriarch himself estimated 644,900 were hanging around in 1921; hundreds of thousands had left on their own accord to other lands. The original population was some 1.5 million.) Of those who died, most died of non-murderous reasons, such as famine and disease. These are the same causes that took the lives of the majority of the 2.7 million other Ottomans who died, even the soldiers. Morgenthau himself wrote in his "Story" book that thousands of Turks were dying daily of starvation. In addition, Morgenthau's contention that the Ottoman authorities "made no particular attempt to conceal" their plans for extermination is an outright lie; please consult Lowry's paper to see the manipulations at work.

10. If Morgenthau accused his nation of being a partner-in-crime in the extermination of Armenians, what of the case where the USA never even recognized the extermination efforts of the Armenians against their fellow Ottomans? The Armenians, sometimes with the help of their Russian and French allies, murdered many, many more Turks, Muslims and others than the Armenians who were murdered by renegade criminals and revengists. (Of course, in those days, non-Christians did not always qualify as part of the human family, particularly Muslims. What do we then make of those today, such as Frank Pallone, who never waste a breath on the Turkish victims?)

11. What "great personal risk and sacrifice"? Was there a loose floorboard in the U.S. embassy that Morgenthau could have tripped on?

12. If Morgenthau were truly an "American man of courage and character," he would have made no distinction between Armenians and Turks, regarding each as valuable human beings... in the same manner of his successor, Admiral Bristol. Morgenthau would have spent as much effort raising funds for those thousands of Turks dying daily, of the same causes as the Armenians.

13. Unfortunately, the genocide industry and much of the world societies they have conned are already making certain to "follow Morgenthau's example," designating one class of humans as more valuable than another... which completely goes against the concept of "human rights."

14. If the majority of Ottoman-Armenians survived, and there is not one shred of actual evidence demonstrating the government intentionally embarked on a plan to wipe out the Armenians, then an ethical person would never dare classify such business as "systematic elimination."

15. Most of us recognize that phony "noble purpose" of the genocide industry; if a murderer sets upon committing murder, no law will prevent him from doing so. Certainly, the passage of this Armenian resolution by the U.S. Congress will have no effect whatsoever on future genocides from being committed, or the resolve of the USA to prevent the crime. (Nobody cares today about what is happening in Africa, for example.) The entire reason behind the Armenian resolution is political, and there is nothing like an immoral politician to help make it possible.

16. The "first genocide of the 20th Century" was most likely U.S. actions in the Philippines (civilian death toll: an estimated 200,000 to possibly as high as 1 million), followed by the Germans vs. the Hereros, the Serbs vs. the Albanians, and the Bulgarians, Greeks, Serbs and Montenegrins vs. the Ottoman Turks in the first Balkan war (1,445,179 Ottoman Muslims were affected in 1912-20, paralleling the pre-war Ottoman-Armenian population. That number amounted to a loss of 62%, as related in Dr. Justin McCarthy's "Death and Exile." Of these, 632,408 died, also paralleling the Armenians, in their mortality), all pre-dating "1915."

17. Frank Pallone, knee-deep in such malicious falsehoods, is now instructing us on what it means to be "moral."

18. Not only is this "fact" not irrefutable, it is extremely easy to refute, by pointing to unconflicted sources, and by virtue of the fact that there is no real evidence to prove a genocide. In his next sentence, Pallone will claim that the "genocide" is "impossible to deny," but that is a favorite tactic of such unscrupulous propagandists. By almost hysterically reminding us that a non-fact is a fact in every other sentence, maybe the dimwits in the audience will buy the story.

19. "Under conditions of great stress people are poorer perceivers, because stress causes a narrowing of attention." For a discussion as to why "oral history can never substitute for real history, please tune in to the "Armenian Oral History Proves: TREACHERY & REBELLION" page.

20. Born in 1906, that would make our "oral historian" nine-years-old in 1915. We don't know when Mrs. Hanessian "left her story behind," as Pallone will later put it, but it would be the very rare adult genius who can single out events with necessary clarity from their ninth year of life. (Particularly if these memories are recorded in old age, as has been the case with most Armenian "oral historians," generally at the behest and guidance of propaganda-pushers.) In addition, the 1909 incidents must be Adana. Is that what actually happened, that "the Turks were leading a massacre on all Armenians in the area"? (Pallone doesn't miss a beat, does he?) Or did the armed-to-the-teeth Armenians of this time fire the first shot, as usual?

21. Yet again? When were Armenians "deported" in previous Ottoman history? (Not that the Armenians were "exiled" in 1915, either; they were not sent out of the country, as the innocent Muslims who were forcefully removed from Russia, needing to walk through the dangerous wartime frontlines in 1915. The Armenians were temporarily sent elsewhere in their own country, until the wartime danger had passed. They would have never been sent away had the Armenian community remained loyal, as a whole, to their own country. Even Armenia's first prime minister admitted as such, calling it a "terrible fact."

22. Were the Armenians "forced" on the trains? It's my understanding that only the ones who could afford tickets could ride the train; that implies the others needed to walk, as their cousins in the east, where there were no railroads. (This was the bankrupt "Sick Man" lacking mass transit, where everyone marched in order to get from Point A to Point B, including the soldiers.) The ones from the west were the lucky ones, allowed to ride the one-track railroad which was already in great demand for war purposes. The conditions were no doubt very bad, but were they bad out of "intent," as strongly implied, or because of the wretchedness of the times affecting all? To get a better idea, the reader is advised to tune in to the diary of Hrant Sarian, written Anne Frank style, as the events transpired, without later embellishment. Sarian's family also took the train, but there is no sign of deliberate persecution.

23. "Barracks," as in a kind of prison? Highly doubtful. (Were large vacant barracks available for occupancy a common Ottoman building structure?) The idea was to transport the Armenians to villages, without barbed wire or German Shepherds, as long as the Armenians did not exceed 10% of the population. (Limiting their potential to rebel.) Transit camps in between meant tents, if available. It was horrible any way one looks at it, but still a far cry from being locked up. See the Sarian diary to get a better idea of what took place in transit.

24. Probably some Turks had ill feelings toward what were seen as a treacherous people, along the same lines as how Americans regarded Muslim Americans after 9/11, but no nine-year-old was going to be aware of whether such was a general sentiment. Even in those dark times, hatred would have been a very rare feeling among the characteristically forgiving Turks. The usual reaction among the Turkish "rank and file," as Leon Surmelian (who was also nine-years-old in 1915) put it, was more likely as such: "Why should such things happen? Isn’t there room enough for all of us to live in peace? You have done us no harm, and we wish you no harm. Allah be with you.” As for Mrs. Hanessian's theory that suffering and death was a substitute for murder, sorry; if everyone in the Ottoman Empire was dying from famine and disease, even the soldiers, that does not make Armenians dying from these causes "genocide" victims. We are already getting an excellent idea of how much more our "oral historian" was interested in Hai Tahd (the Armenian Cause) instead of the truth.

25. This passage confirms what a propaganda-meister Mrs. Hanessian was. First, most who traveled by train safely reached their destinations. If food/water was not provided, we know that was contrary to orders from central command, as with one from June 9, 1915 testifying that 500,000 kurush was sent from the refugees fund for food and lodging expenses. (Archival source: BOA, DH. SFR, nr. 53/305; naturally, local officials did not always do their jobs dutifully, particularly if they were corrupt.) But mainly, there is no way a little girl could have been privy to an order from "General Headquarters" to kill all Armenians, even if such an order actually existed. (Such an order would have been in total opposition to the authentic orders we know to be in existence, safeguarding Armenian lives and property.) In addition, the forced conversion to Islam claim is total propaganda. The reality is that Armenians were converting to Islam on their own accord, in order to be exempted from the resettlement policy, but the government recognized this trick and put a stop to it; they decreed no regard should be paid to such conversions. (Ciphered telegram from the Ministry of the Interior, July 1, 1915; BOA, DH. SFR, nr. 54/254; the reader should be reminded these were internal orders never meant to be publicized, and therefore cannot be construed as propaganda.)

26. Indeed, the Armenians were forced to find ways to survive, like every other Ottoman. At least she admitted her family was sent to villages, which allowed the Armenians the freedom to live their lives, quite a different matter than to be holed up in a concentration camp or a prison, as the British treated their German men. The diary of Hrant Sarian contradicts the "you couldn't get in touch with anybody" claim; whatever passed for a postal service in Ottoman towns was open to everybody.

27. Indeed, it was terrible. The Armenians suffered horribly. The point is, however, every Ottoman was suffering; there was no exclusive victimhood. And suffering is not genocide.

28. No doubt we can count on Frank Pallone to keep these memories alive, but it is contemptible of him to pass these off as actual history. This Armenian woman was very obviously influenced by "patriotism," and she felt no compunction in coloring her statements... and in making things up.

Rep. Adam Schiff Versus Secretary Condoleezza Rice

The web site of Congressman Adam Schiff provides a transcript of his encounter with the U.S. Secretary of State. Schiff could have asked her any question directly affecting the nation he has vowed to serve, and yet he decided to spend his time in predictable fashion, making no bones about where his priorities lay.

Rep. Adam Schiff: Man in Control

Michael Crowley wrote of Schiff in his article for The New Republic (referenced below): "Representative Adam Schiff may be the first person elected to Congress through the politics of the Armenian genocide. Back in 2000, Schiff was a California state senator challenging Republican incumbent Jim Rogan. The Burbank-area district is home to 75,000 Armenian-Americans, or about 10 percent of the population, many of them desperate to see Washington brand the Turks as genocide artists."

The race with Rogan was examined here. See what's happening? The reason for existence of these politicians pretty much boils down to sucking up to the Armenians. They don't care about the truth, as long as their Armenian constituents are pleased. (If they are not pleased, a fellow like Schiff is aware that come re-election time, his chances would be practically doomed.) And Adam Schiff has outdone the pathetic Frank Pallone in Schiff's attempts to appease his Armenian benefactors. It is truly stomach-churning that American congressmen can be so very blatant with serving a wealthy and influential part of the people, and not all of the people.

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Schiff Presses Secretary of State Rice on Armenian Genocide Recognition

Washington, D.C. – Today, at an Appropriations hearing before the Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) pressed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on her opposition to recognizing the Armenian Genocide carried out by the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1923. [29] In his pointed questioning, Schiff repeatedly asked the Secretary of State if she believed that the murder of 1.5 million Armenians [30] could be characterized as anything other than a genocide. The Secretary did not directly respond.

“I was disappointed that Secretary of State Rice was unwilling to acknowledge the plain facts of the Armenian Genocide,” said Schiff. “We cannot maintain the moral force we need to take action against the genocide going on in Darfur, if the Administration continues to equivocate about the genocide against the Armenians.” [31]


The exchange between Rep. Schiff and Secretary Rice follows.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF: Thank you, Madam Chair.

U.S. Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA) questioning Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice... Regarding the State Department's efforts to defeat legislation recognizing the Armenian Genocide

REP. ADAM SCHIFF: Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Secretary, welcome. About a week or so ago, Madam Secretary, you and Secretary Gates sent a letter to some of the chairs of committees here on the Hill opposing recognition of the Armenian genocide. This concerned me for a number of reasons, not the least of which that I don't see how we can have the moral authority that we need to condemn the genocide going in Darfur if we're unwilling to recognize other genocides that have taken place, if we're unwilling to recognize the first genocide of the last century, where 1.5 million people lost their lives.

We're all well aware of how the Turkish lobby and Turkey has, either implicitly or explicitly, threatened because it doesn't want the genocide recognized and its own difficulty in coming to grips with that chapter of Ottoman history. [32] So I'm not going to ask you about that, but I do want to ask you, is there any -- do you have any doubt, in your mind, that the murder of 1.5 million Armenians between 1915 and 1923 constituted genocide? Is there any doubt about that, in your mind?

SECRETARY OF STATE CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Congressman, I think that these historical circumstances require a very detailed and sober look from historians and what we've encouraged the Turks and the Armenians to do is to have joint historical commissions that can look at this, to have efforts to examine their past [33] and, in examining their past, to get over their past.

But I will tell you, Congressman, I don't think that it helps that process of reconciliation for the United States to enter this debate at that level. I just don't think it's helpful.

SCHIFF: Madam Secretary, your comments, you think that there should be some kind of debate or discussion about the genocide suggests that you have a question about whether genocide occurred. Is that correct? [34]

RICE: Congressman, I believe that this is something that Turks and Armenians are best to address through their own processes of coming to terms with their history.

Lots of people have had to come to terms with their history...

SCHIFF: Yes, and, Madam Secretary, we have to come to grips with our own history.

RICE: Yes.

SCHIFF: And we did. [35]

RICE: I personally am well aware of that.

SCHIFF: But, Madam Secretary, you come out of academia.

RICE: Yes.

SCHIFF: Is there any historic debate outside of Turkey? Is there any reputable historian you're aware of that takes issue with the fact that the murder of 1.5 million Armenians constituted genocide? [36]

RICE: Congressman, I come out of academia, but I'm secretary of state now and I think that the best way to have this proceed is for the United States not to be in the position of making this judgment, but rather for the Turks and the Armenians to come to their own terms about this. Lots of people are coming to terms with their history in Asia, in Europe people have had to come to terms with their own history and that's...

SCHIFF: Madam Secretary, we have no reluctance to recognize genocide in Darfur. We have no reluctance to talk about the Cambodian genocide or the Rwandan genocide or the Holocaust.

Rep. Adam Schiff

Why is it only this genocide? Is it because Turkey is a strong ally? Is that an ethical and moral reason to ignore the murder of 1.5 million people? [37] Why is it we don't say, "Let's relegate the Holocaust to historians" or "relegate the Cambodian genocide or Rwandan genocide ?" [37b] Why is it only this genocide that we should let the Turks acknowledge or not acknowledge? And, Madam Secretary, Hrant Dink, who was murdered outside of his office, is not a testimony to Turkish progress. The fact that Turkey brought a Nobel-winning author up on charges of insulting Turkishness because he talked about the murder of the Armenians doesn't show great efforts of reconciliation of Turkey. [38] Why is it only this genocide we're incapable of recognizing?

RICE: Congressman, we have recognized and the president recognizes every year in a resolution that he himself issues the historical circumstances and the tragedy that befell the Armenian people at that time. We do recognize it. [39] But I don't -- if you'll just allow me. I do not see that this situation is going to get better in the sense that it allows Turks and Armenians to move on to deal with their present unless we are able to let them deal with their past as to the murder that you...

SCHIFF: Madam Secretary, because I'm going to run out of time. [40] You recognize more than anyone, as a diplomat, the power of words.

RICE: Yes.

SCHIFF: And I'm sure you supported the recognition of genocide in Darfur, not calling it tragedy, not calling it atrocity, not calling it anything else, but the power and significance of calling it genocide .

Why is that less important in the case of the Armenian genocide? [41]

RICE: Congressman, the power here is in helping these people to move forward. After the murder that you talked about, Turks went into the streets to embrace Armenians and to say that this is not the way that Turks behave.[42]

The foreign minister himself has called into question the issue of arresting people for Turkishness. I do think that there is an evolution that is going on in a Turkey that is democratizing and democratizing before our very eyes and where Turks will be able to deal better with their history.

But I do believe that people are better left to try and deal with this themselves if they're going to be able to move forward.

We have to ask ourselves, "What is the purpose here," and I think the purpose is to acknowledge, of course, the historic tragedy, but the purpose is also to allow Turks and Armenians to be able to move forward.

And, yes, Turkey is a good ally and that is important. [43] But more important is that like many historical tragedies, like many historical circumstances of this kind, people need to come to terms with it and they need to move on. We've done that in our own country. People have done it in Europe. People have done it in Asia and I think...

SCHIFF: Madam Secretary...


RICE: ... the best to have them move forward together.

LOWEY: Thank you, Mr. Schiff.


REP. LOWEY: The secretary has agreed to stay for a few more minutes, so if you'll be brief, Mr. Schiff and Ms. Lee. Mr. Schiff.

REP. SCHIFF: Thank you, Madame Chair. Just one final comment on the subject we visited earlier, and then I have a question on a different matter. I think rather than urging the Congress to ignore the Armenian genocide or urging us in effect to abide by Turkish Section 301 not to offend or insult Turkishness, I think it's more productive to be urging Turkey to recognize the genocide and also work on the relationship between the U.S. and Turkey so that it can survive our clear statement of the truth. [44]

Iran hosts conferences of historians on the Holocaust. I don't think we want to get in the business of encouraging conferences of historians on the undeniable facts of the Armenian genocide. [45]


29. Here is where we can refer to Footnote 2 above, where Pallone was lunkheaded enough to extend the "genocide" to 1918. But Schiff attempts to pledge total allegiance to his Armenian masters by going all the way to 1923, when the Ottoman government was no longer in existence. (And in the years immediately prior, were lackeys of the occupying British.) After 1918, the Turks were completely vanquished, and were hanging on by the skin of their teeth. What a perfect time to expend manpower and resources that were unavailable, in order to conduct a "genocide."

30. Indeed, how feasible that 1.5 million could be killed from an original population of some 1.5 million (according to the consensus of contemporary Western evaluation), and one million survived, according to hardcore propagandists such as Dadrian and Balakian. In addition, every one of those supposed 1.5 million, regardless of whatever they died from, be it combat or typhus, must have been a victim of "murder." Adam Schiff, by the way, was a product of Harvard Law School, like Samantha Power. How embarrassing that he can lower himself to this degree, without any respect for law, which calls for that annoying little requirement known as "evidence."

31. Countless historical examples of "Man's Inhumanity to Man," the great majority of which is ignored by the corrupt genocide industry, and this character is telling us we have no right to comment on Darfur before agreeing on the Armenians' propaganda. What a phony! And there is that noble pretension again, reminding us what it means to be "moral."

32. The Turks have come to grips with this historical chapter, knowing full well that there was no extermination plan against the Armenians, while acknowledging the resettlement policy did not go smoothly, and crimes were committed against some Armenians. The Turks are also aware that many, many thousands of Turks and others were slaughtered by the Armenians. It is not up to stooges like Adam Schiff to lecture on what "coming to grips" entails, when he pursues such dishonesty and, by ignoring Turkish victims, racism.

33. I'm not aware of when the U.S. government "encouraged" the Turks and Armenians to get together and iron out their historical differences, but they didn't need to bother with Turkey. That nation's leader, Erdogan, called on Armenia for just such an impartial investigation, in early 2005. Since "genocide" is the greatest racket the Armenians have going, Armenia naturally rejected the offer. Its archives, as well as the archives of the A.R.F. in Boston, remain closed to outsiders.

34. "What a complete fool!" is the first reaction that comes to mind, but Mr. Schiff is cleverly calculating these remarks, as the shrewd propagandist he has allowed himself to become. Yet if we think as honorable truth-seekers, how could there not be doubt, with such a complex and controversial historical episode? Too bad Ms. Rice did not respond to this non-intellectual in the manner he deserved to be addressed.

35. We did? Have Americans come to terms with the many crimes America has historically committed? For example, if the "first genocide of the 20th century" was American actions in the Philippines, how many Americans would be aware? Further, how many would care? What a naive statement to make.

36. There is no historic debate outside of Turkey, because the world is still overwhelmingly prejudiced against the "Terrible Turk," and more importantly, the real historians have been intimidated away from the debate, thanks to the underhanded tactics by Armenians and their supporters. As far as Schiff's question regarding reputable historians, is he normally this anxious to demonstrate what a dunce he is? Prof. Guenter Lewy has written, "A large number of Western students of Ottoman history reject the appropriateness of the genocide label for the tragic fate of the Armenian community in Ottoman Turkey. This list includes distinguished scholars such as Roderic Davison, J.C. Hurewitz, Bernard Lewis, and Andrew Mango." I suppose Schiff must have concluded that just because a propagandist such as Harut Sassounian has compared a reputable historian as Andrew Mango to "David Irving, the infamous Holocaust revisionist," Dr. Mango can safely be removed from the "reputable" category, but that is not the way the world works among people of conscience and integrity. (In 1985, before the vicious smear campaigns were begun, the reputable historians could be more readily found.)

37. Here we go again, being lectured to on what is "ethical" and "moral." Note how Schiff has no concern over the interests of his own nation, if Turkey is indeed a strong ally. He does not care at all about the ramifications that may follow, hurting U.S. interests. Yes, sometimes in the world of politics, hard choices need to be made. The USA has had a long history of going to bed with despots, in order to preserve U.S. interests. If Ottoman Turkey was really guilty of a century-old genocide, would harping on that be more important than endangering U.S. interests in today's dangerous world? Particularly when so many other criminal historical events go ignored? What false sanctimony. (He will go on to vent about "Why is it only this genocide that we should let the Turks acknowledge or not acknowledge?" Is that true? Is the Armenian business the only "genocide" that the USA has "let" alone? Embarrassing.)

37b.  Have you noticed Schiff did not include Bosnia? The reason is, earlier in 2007, the highest U.N. court in the Hague declared that Serbia did not commit a genocide. Yet before this ruling, "Bosnia" would routinely be included in the same breath with "Cambodia" and "Rwanda" as examples of genocide. What does this mean? To prove a genocide is an extremely difficult matter, because there are hardly any examples as black and white as the prototypical one regarding the Nazis and the Jews; it is very easy to use the "genocide" label for manipulative purposes, but doing so does not necessarily make it so. What this Schiff-ty character has inadvertently revealed is that of course there is always room for debate (among honorable truth-seekers at any rate, and not agenda-ridden stooges), because today's orthodoxy may be tomorrow's dissent. And those certain of their facts should never be afraid of debate. (Particularly as long as one's opponent is rational and fairly intelligent, and not a hopeless or fanatical dogmatist or propagandist.)

38. How does the murder of Hrant Dink, committed by a deranged and/or brainwashed individual, reflect upon the honor of an entire nation? Are there no murders committed in the USA? What a horribly unfair low blow. As far as his outrage over Turkey's "insulting Turkishness" law (and his victim in this case, not incidentally, mainly won his Nobel Prize because of his willingness to join the genocide forces. Also not incidentally, he was not convicted), it sounds as though Schiff disapproves of curtailing freedom of speech. Why, then, has he probably never criticized nations such as France and Switzerland that forbid genocide denial? His hypocrisy is truly something.

39. And isn't that absolutely the truth? (It can actually be pretty hysterical how American presidents feel compelled to recite Armenian propaganda so obediently and to the letter on April 24, in order to appease their obsessed Armenian constituency; it goes to show what a powerful minority Armenian-Americans are.) The whole problem is that just because the "genocide" word is not used, congressional stooges allow themselves to get bent out of shape, and to put on display their gross partisanship to Hai Tahd; meanwhile, they are supposed to be representing all of the people, and ultimately, the truth.

40. Schiff is pretty rude, the way he kept cutting Rice off throughout this exchange.

41. Could the answer be... let's see now... oh, yes. That the "Armenian genocide" is not a real genocide?

42. At least Rice managed to come up with something that offered substance, to Schiff's viciousness. Too bad she likely couldn't feel free to really let him have it, such as challenging him as to what makes him so sure this business constitutes a genocide. Such frankness would be tantamount to political suicide, of course. And as funny as it would be to see Schiff providing examples such as "Morgenthau" and an "Armenian oral historian" as his pathetic "evidence," the reality is that these unscrupulous forces have forged so far ahead, it does not even become feasible for someone to speak the truth in such an official forum.

43. At the very least, Turkey did not borrow $50 million from the USA in good faith, back in 1919, at 5% interest, and then reneged on the deal, as Armenia has done. Schiff would rather side with the benefactors that follow the strategy Sam Weems outlined: "Armenians, in the last 10 years, have probably spent about 14 million dollars to support all the political candidates that they did. When those candidates got elected, Armenia got 1.4 billion dollars in the same 10 years as US Foreign Aid. That is, for every one dollar Armenian Americans "invested", they got $100 back in US Aid to Armenia! 100 to 1 return! This is a better return than Las Vegas casinos! "

44. "...Our clear statement of the truth." This character truly has no shame, speaking of "the truth." And yes, that sounds like an amazingly intelligent policy, boiling down U.S.-Turkish relations to nothing but the "Armenian genocide."

45. Ironically, information on Schiff reveals that "Schiff also co-founded the Congressional Caucus for Freedom of the Press in May 2006... (aiming) to advance press freedom around the world by creating a forum to combat and condemn media censorship." On the other hand, the hypocrite is a proponent of encouraging academic censorship by frowning upon "conferences of historians." What may be said of such a man?

Schiff and Pallone Team Up

Armenian National Committee of America



Offers Point-by-Point Challenge to Turkish Lobbyist's Diatribe against the Armenian Genocide Resolution

WASHINGTON, DC - The Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) distributed an on-line video, today, countering an eight minute anti-genocide diatribe, released by Turkey's multi-million dollar lobbyist Bob Livingston, in a patently desperate effort to block Congressional adoption of the Armenian Genocide Resolution (H.Res.106 / S.Res.106)

Livingston's denial piece was posted on the Capitol Hill Broadcasting Network website, with links forwarded to Members of Congress and their staffs urging them to watch the video and work against Armenian Genocide legislation. Less than twelve hours after Bob Livingston's genocide denial video was posted, the ANCA issued a point by point video rebuttal, which was distributed widely to Congressional offices and policy makers throughout Washington, DC. [46] The ANCA video is featured above.

Bob Livingston

Also in response to the Livingston attack [47] , Armenian Genocide Resolution lead advocates, Representatives Adam Schiff (D-CA), George Radanovich (R-CA), Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and Joe Knollenberg (R-MI) cosigned a July 18th letter to Congressional colleagues discrediting Livingston's denialist claims. The Congressional letter noted that:

"For the past seven years Mr. Livingston has been a paid lobbyist for Turkey, which has spent millions of dollars denying what the world knows to be true – that in the first decades of the last century a horrible genocide was committed against the Armenian people. The factual evidence supporting the Armenian Genocide is vast, and no effort to deny these facts – no matter the source of the denial – will ever change history."

The letter went on to urge House members to join over 220 of their colleagues in cosponsoring H.Res.106. Similar appeals have been made in two recent floor speeches by Congressional Armenian Caucus Co-Chair Frank Pallone (D-NJ). The ANCA will be hosting its second national Congressional Call-In Day on July 23rd to secure increased House support for the swift passage of the Armenian Genocide resolution.

Earlier this week, The New Republic, a major national magazine, ran a feature-length, stinging exposé on the efforts of Turkish government lobbyists to defeat the Armenian Genocide Resolution. The article, written by Michael Crowley, provides a behind the scenes glimpse into the multi-million dollar genocide denial industry, spotlighting former House Minority leader Dick Gephardt and Bob Livingston as the lead beneficiaries of Turkey's anti-genocide campaign.

"It's one thing to flip-flop on, say, tax cuts or asbestos reform. But, when it comes to genocide, you would hope for high principle to carry the day," explains Crowley. [48] "In Washington, however, the Armenian genocide industry is in full bloom. And Dick Gephardt's shilling isn't even the half of it."

Crowley describes a shadowy world of foreign agents, ready to purvey the Turkish government's lies for hefty fees, often on the condition of anonymity.[49]

"A few weeks ago, I called the Turkish Embassy to request an interview. A couple of days later, I heard back - not from the embassy, but from an American p.r. consultant employed by the Turks,” explains Crowley. “He suggested we meet the next day at a Starbucks. I found him in a corner behind a glowing white iBook. He had long slicked- back hair, a seersucker suit, and a blinking Bluetooth earpiece, and looked ready for a power lunch with the sharky agent Ari Gold from ‘Entourage.’[50] He informed me our conversation would be off the record, before launching his well-honed argument against the genocide resolution."

Crowley's description of Livingston is no more flattering. "But the kingpin of Turkish advocacy is Bob Livingston, whose lobbying firm, the Livingston Group, has hauled in roughly $13 million in Turkish lucre since 2000. Livingston, best remembered for his comically brief stint as House Speaker-elect at the height of the Clinton impeachment debacle (before he tearfully admitted his own extramarital affair and resigned from Congress in disgrace), has lobbied on a range of issues dear to Turkey's heart. But it's his tireless fight against the genocide resolution that makes him a hero in Ankara."[51]

The complete text of Crowley's article may be read in the July 23rd issue of The New Republic or online at...


The text of the Schiff-Radanovich-Pallone-Knollenberg "Dear Colleague" letter is provided below.

Text of Schiff-Radanovich-Pallone-Knollenberg “Dear Colleague” letter

The Armenian Genocide: Facts vs. Fees July 18, 2007

Dear Colleague:

Yesterday, you may have received an e-mail from our former colleague, Bob Livingston, regarding the Armenian Genocide. In the email and the embedded video attached to it, Livingston seeks to cast doubt on the facts of the first genocide of the Twentieth Century.

Adam Schiff in early February, 2007, teaming up with Frank Pallone
(at right), calling for recognition of their genocide resolution, and to
 “accurately characterize the systematic and deliberate annihilation of
1,500,000 Armenians as genocide.” Middle: Rep. George Radonovich.

Livingston claims that there is a question among historians as to whether the genocide was, in fact, genocide. The truth is that there is near unanimity among historians and genocide experts that the murder of 1.5 million Armenians from 1915-23 was genocide.[52]

Livingston claims that the mass murders that took place were “localized” and took place in the confusion of World War I and that they were not directed by the central government of the Ottoman Empire. [53] The truth is that the Armenian Genocide was orchestrated at the highest levels of the Young Turk government and that several of the central perpetrators were tried by the Turkish Government after World War I. [54] As documented in thousands of pages in our National Archives, American diplomats and American journalists were well aware of what was happening while it was ongoing. [55] America’s Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, Henry Morgenthau, reported on the massacres in great detail. Morgenthau was appalled at what he would later call the sadistic orgies of rape, torture and murder. “When the Turkish authorities gave the orders for these deportations, they were merely giving the death warrant to a whole race; they understood this well, and . . . made no particular attempt to conceal the fact.” [56]

For the past seven years Mr. Livingston has been a paid lobbyist for Turkey, which has spent millions of dollars denying what the world knows to be true – that in the first decades of the last century a horrible genocide was committed against the Armenian people. The factual evidence supporting the Armenian Genocide is vast [57], and no effort to deny these facts – no matter the source of the denial – will ever change history. Attached to this email is an article from the current issue of The New Republic detailing the lengths to which Turkey will go to deny the undeniable. Also attached is an article from The New York Review of Books on the history of the genocide by noted Israeli historian Michael Oren. In his article, Oren notes:

"In contrast to Germany, which has publicly and often obsessively accepted culpability for the Holocaust, paid restitution to its victims, and released documents attesting to its guilt, the Republic of Turkey has never admitted its part in the mass murder of Armenians, much less compensated the survivors. Rather than encourage research on its past butchery, the Turkish government has promoted publications that exonerate it from any wrongdoing and portray the Armenians as traitors to the state who allied themselves with Russia and executed thousands of Turks." [58]

We urge you to read the articles as you consider Livingston’s claims.

H. Res. 106 has been cosponsored by more than 220 of our colleagues and we are continuing to add additional cosponsors. We urge you to stand up for the truth and honor the memory of the dead by adding your name to the list of cosponsors. For more information, or to cosponsor, please contact Tim Bergreen in Mr. Schiff’s office or Chris Herndon in Mr. Radanovich’s office.


Adam Schiff Member of Congress

George Radanovich Member of Congress

Frank Pallone Member of Congress

Joe Knollenberg Member of Congress


46. "Less than twelve hours after Bob Livingston's genocide denial video was posted..." How can the poor Turks compete with such determined efficiency?

47. The charge of genocide when there is no proof is the real attack. The response would be called a "defense."

48. Crowley charges in his article that at one point Gephardt was a genocide supporter. No surprise there; in American politics, it's almost a necessity for a politician to express support for the "genocide," given the power and wealth of the Armenian-Americans. Yet when Gephardt joined the Turkish team (while getting handsomely compensated through his lobbying firm), he became a "flip-flopper." Being a flip-flopper naturally connotes a lack of character, changing one's mind when there is something to be gained. (As Crowley put it: "It's one thing to flip-flop on, say, tax cuts or asbestos reform. But, when it comes to genocide, you would hope for high principle to carry the day.") Yet could not one change one's mind if better facts come along? Isn't it the duty of the honorable person to revise one's views, if one finds the old information to be wrong? I'm not saying this is what happened with Dick Gephardt, but it's entirely possible. It happened with Prof. Bernard Lewis, once he read (as Dadrian claimed) Kamuran Gurun/s "The Armenian File." In short, if a genocide turns out to be a fake, then one of "high principle" would surely not keep insisting on the genocide's validity, simply because many fuzzy-headed proponents lazily regard genocides as sacred and set in stone.

49. It's hard not to be sympathetic to those requiring anonymity, given the ruthlessness and the utter lack of scruples of genocide proponents. Crowley's article is a good example; he seems intent at times on debasing the character of those whose views are different, instead of focusing on the issues.

50. In contrast, Crowley described Adam Schiff in a positive manner, as "the tanned and mild-mannered Harvard Law graduate." It's like when the missionary Clarence Ussher wrote, “Armenians had been self-sacrificing, generous, helpful, and cheerful….Turks were callous, indifferent to each other’s sufferings, utterly selfish….They were filthy beyond description.” (Or when Morgenthau wrote in his "Story" book that "The Armenians are known for their industry, their intelligence, and their decent and orderly lives. They are so superior to the Turks intellectually and morally," while the "inarticulate, ignorant" and "brutal" Turks "hardly resemble any people I have ever known. They do not hate, they do not love; they have no lasting animosities or affections. They only fear." Crowley made sure to describe the lobbyists for the Turks as people beneath contempt. Another example soon follows, beginning with, "Crowley's description of Livingston is no more flattering," as the ANCA correctly makes certain to point out.

51. I would doubt that Livingston would be considered as a "hero" in Ankara; this is an unfounded speculation, revealing the author's bias. Why should Livingston be a hero, if he is being so excessively compensated for his services? A hero is supposed to act selflessly.

52. "Genocide experts" are predominantly scholarly frauds, for beginning their theses with the conclusion first; a true scholar (as a true journalist) first collects all information before reaching a dispassionate conclusion, and has no agenda to follow. Most do not have a background in history, and the few who do have forgotten the rules of honest history. The real historians have been intimidated away from this dangerous subject matter. But that won't stop these dishonest parties from making such misleading claims. Look at the shameless way in which they label their thoroughly propagandistic figure of 1.5 million, and the non-fact of a genocide being conducted up to 1923, as "the truth." (One would not be surprised if the ANCA penned this stupidity, and these political mediocrities simply added their signatures.)

53. These conclusions are strongly supported by the credible, unconflicted evidence.

54. If the only proof of the genocidal myth being "orchestrated at the highest levels of the Young Turk government" are the 1919-20 trials, then these propagandists have entirely lost their argument. Even the British found these trials to be a travesty of justice (the defendants were actually not allowed their own lawyers), conducted as a means for revenge by the successive Ottoman government, who were under the British gun, and these lackeys were also hoping for lenient treatment at the Peace Conference. The trials are akin to the scenario of a Nazi victory in WWII, and the successive puppet U.S. government's being ordered to find villains — or else. If American principals such as Truman, Eisenhower and Patton were to be tried in such kangaroo courts, who would find them legitimate? (The 1919-20 trials were so absurd, even a protector of the Armenians, Jemal Pasha, was condemned to death.)

55. The U.S. newspaper that perhaps puked the worst anti-Turkish reports, the New York Times, admitted in an Oct. 10,  1915 article: "What has happened... is still an unwritten chapter. No newspapermen are allowed to visit the affected districts and reports from these are altogether unreliable." (Of course there were journalists who had access; few wanted to take the trip into the foreboding interior. One who did, George Schreiner, concluded: no genocide.) This means newspaper accounts on the Armenian matter were comprised of hearsay and propaganda, and are nearly worthless. As for the consular reports (these would be the same already-bigoted consuls who received their information exclusively from their Armenian interpreters and the missionaries), the British examined the best of them in 1921, desperately hoping to come up with genocidal evidence in preparation for the Malta Tribunal; on July 21, their report concluded that "...there was nothing therein which could be used as evidence... the accounts given were confined to the personal opinions of the writers; no concrete facts being given which could constitute satisfactory incriminating evidence." In other words, hearsay. So useless, the embarrassed State Department required that anything from the U.S. archives could only be used as long as "the source of information will not be divulged.” (From an earlier 1921 telegram.)

56. Once again, Henry Morgenthau did not eyewitness anything. See Footnote 9. In point of fact, Morgenthau's private letters and diaries reveal that he was very friendly with Enver and Talat Pasha. Given the Ottoman authorities' knowledge of tremendous U.S. hostility and prejudice against Turks, they certainly would have never admitted to the American ambassador, of all people, that the Armenians were marked for extermination (assuming that was the goal).

57. No, it is the hearsay and forgeries that are vast. There is no factual evidence proving a genocide, whatsoever. "Personal opinions" of bigoted people who were not at the scene do not constitute "factual evidence."

Prof. Michael Oren

58. It is particularly shameful when an "Israeli historian" (the American-born Oren actually has a Ph.D. from Princeton University, in Middle East History) dishonors the victims of the Holocaust by equating their tragedy with the Armenian fabrication. (In "The Mass Murder They Still Deny," May 10 issue, The New York Review of Books.) When Michael Oren disputes the irrefutable facts that the Armenians traitorously "allied themselves with Russia" (it was England and France as well), and "executed thousands of Turks," then what can be said? It's no wonder; the book he reviewed here was Taner Akcam's thoroughly dishonest (here's a sample) Dadrian-paste-up job, "A Shameful Act," which Oren dumbly labeled "courageous and timely." What kind of a historian would reach conclusions on the basis of one blatantly propagandistic book? It's all here; Oren snaps to dutiful "genocide club" attention by vouching for the Armenians having "Christian roots in Anatolia," when the real evidence suggests they migrated from elsewhere. He vouches for Morgenthau, writing that Morgenthau "had recent proof of the mass killing of Armenians by the Turks." What was this proof? "Between 1894 and 1896, Turkish troops rampaged through Armenian villages, ransacking an estimated one million houses and killing as many [as] 200,000." (Sorry, have to pause; did he actually write "one million" houses? The 1893 Ottoman census, run by the Jewish Fethi Franco, had the Armenian population at 1,001,465; we are being told every Armenian's house was ransacked, folks.) How does Oren know this? An American diplomat wrote, "All the Armenians in sight were killed." Was the American diplomat actually there? Of course not! Oren also cites the New York Times. (Headline: "Another Armenian Holocaust!") What kind of a historian is this? He also gives credence to the missionaries, biased consuls such as the notorious Jesse Jackson, and the opinion of the far away, Turk-despising Theodore Roosevelt; Oren praises as well "Samantha Power, Jay Winter... Peter Balakian [and] Vahakn N. Dadrian," and actually writes of their fellow propagandist, Taner Akcam, that the latter "is meticulous and fair in presenting" the story! Oren also gives credence to the Ottomans' "Turkification" policy ("Entire communities of Greeks and Armenians were to be 'cleansed'"; and what is the proof of this?), and Dadrian's invented Gestapo fall guy, the "Special Organization" ("anticipating the Nazi Einsatzgruppen"; and what is the proof of this? Akcam's proof here is Dadrian again, but as Dr. Lewy investigated, Dadrian equally again turns out to be a fraud). Oren presents as the reason for 1909 Adana that the Muslims were "inflamed by rumors of a coup in Istanbul against the new government" (why would that serve as a reason to slaughter Armenians?) and that 200,000 Armenians were kicked out of Izmir before WWI began * ! It is simply horrifying that a fellow like this has no use for real facts whatsoever, happily joining the ranks of the propagandists by citing total propaganda. This thoroughly prejudiced agenda-ridden amateur also exposes his bigotry by not even being able to countenance the fact that Armenians murdered "thousands of Turks"; the real toll was hundreds of thousands, and there were Jewish victims as well. It's pitiful.

* Here, our "historian" may have been referring to Ottoman reprisals against a few Western Anatolian coastal communities, and fewer token ones inland, mainly carried out by chettes, where Greek communities were driven from their homes in the spring of 1914, in which case he would have been substituting "Armenians" for "Greeks." What he does not mention, if this was the case, is that these rotten events occurred in the aftermath of Greek "Death and Exile" policies from the First Balkan War (1912), where Greek provocation was still continuing. "In 1914 and 1915, 53,718 fresh Turkish refugees from the Ottoman territories just annexed by Greece passed through the hands of the Ministry of Refugees"; Arnold Toynbee, The Western Question in Greece and Turkey, 1922. As usual, Turkish reaction to murderous Orthodox action. Naturally, our "historian" strictly utilized propaganda with his ridiculously inflated 200,000 figure, and got his facts wrong with the Izmir ("Smyrna") claim. Toynbee continued: "In 1914 the process was happily checked before it had been applied to larger Greek centres like Vurla, Aivali, or Smyrna itself."

 A Few Thoughts on Crowley's "New Republic" Article

What a shame that someone as smart as Michael Crowley walks into this subject with his prejudices and can't remove himself from them. Aside from attempts at fairness (he made sure to get quotations, for example, from Turks such as Gunay Evinch and Murat Lutem), he already made the determination that the Ottoman Turks must have been guilty, and put the thrust of his article to show the evilness of the Turks. Thus, he stressed the millions of dollars the government of Turkey has been spending on these lobbyists, with the implication that the Turks were solely interested in covering up their crime.

Michael Crowley

It does not even occur to him that it is the Turks who are being attacked. And when the Turks try to defend themselves by forking over these exorbitant fees, every time one of these dopey genocide resolutions roll around, Crowley judges the Turks to be guilty.

Moreover, he writes not a word on the millions of dollars the Armenians are spending. For example, it has been reported that the ANCA received eight million dollars from the Republic of Armenia (in 2001). That's a pretty hefty chunk of change from a nation so impoverished, its citizens are deserting in droves, some even going to Turkey in the hope of bettering their lives.

What do you suppose the ANCA does with all of that moolah? For one thing, we know they don't need to hire obscenely expensive lobbying groups, as Turkey is forced to do... because the ANCA is the lobbying group. Instead of hiring ex-politicians who use their old contacts to try and influence currently elected representatives in the Congress, the ANCA and other Armenian lobbying groups craftily go directly to the source: the currently elected representatives in the Congress, themselves. Think about it: why would over two hundred congressional representatives have clamored to be a part of the "Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues," favoring a close ally of Russia, a rinky-dink nation with no strategic value to the USA, and a nation that works to get as much money as possible from the USA? (Per capita, Armenia is the second greatest recipient of U.S. foreign aid, after Israel.) As Sam Weems put it (mentioned earlier, in Footnote 43), "...for every one dollar Armenian Americans 'invested' (in their support of U.S. political candidates), they got $100 back in U.S. Aid to Armenia! 100 to 1 return! This is a better return than Las Vegas casinos!"

Crowley also does not utter a peep on the Armenians' professional propaganda campaign. The Turks are clueless amateurs, in comparison. Has he consulted, for example, this report written by a researcher largely uncritical of the Armenians, examining their powerful lobbies?

I know a few Turkish Americans who are true champions for Turkey. Sad truth is that they are too few and they have little funding to compete against a well-oiled and funded Armenian lobby organization. The Armenians have perhaps 40-50 full time professionals in Washington DC 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!

Sam Weems, interview. (The Turkish Daily News , Feb, 13, 2002)

As you read above, Crowley's statement, "It's one thing to flip-flop on, say, tax cuts or asbestos reform. But, when it comes to genocide, you would hope for high principle to carry the day," pretty much provides the idea that he can't bring himself to question whether any funny business has been involved with the genocide claim. He is neglecting his duty as a journalist to question. And this is particularly inexcusable, especially in this age of the Internet, when the countering information is readily available.

But Crowley appears to be so prejudiced to begin with, he can't even bring himself to look at the matter objectively. (Nothing new here; he represents only the tip of the iceberg. But each time one runs into candidates who promise to be intelligent and competent, it's all the more heartbreaking to discover how closed-minded they turn out to be.)

Focusing on two of his passages:

"...In America's tight-knit Armenian community, it can seem that people want to debate little else. Most Armenian-Americans are descended from survivors of the slaughter and grew up listening to stories about how the Turks, suspecting the Orthodox Christian Armenians of collaborating with their fellow Orthodox Christian Russians during World War I, led their grandparents on death marches, massacred entire villages, and, in one signature tactic, nailed horseshoes to their victims' feet. (The "horseshoe master of Bashkale," the Ottoman provincial governor Jevdet Bey was called.)"

Let's preface the following criticism with the caveat that the points raised above are presented as the opinions of Armenian-Americans, and thus Crowley appears to be off the hook. On the other hand, he presents nothing to cast doubt. The unwary reader is thus left with the impression that the points above must be true. One gets the strong impression that Crowley must be in agreement with the points he has raised, since he does not bother to counter any of them. (He already made it pretty clear that he is an "Armenian genocide" believer, after all.)

Now, note: Crowley evidently has no idea that many Turks are also descended from survivors of slaughter at the hands of Armenians. But he appears so entrenched in his beliefs, he hasn't examined this lesser-told part of the equation. If you bring up the fact, he may perhaps throw a fit. It is simply not in line with his comfort zone, where the Turks must be the villains, and the Armenians the innocent angels.

Now pay heed to the fact that he writes the Ottoman Turks were merely "suspecting" that the Armenians were collaborating with the Russians. Of course; Armenian propaganda has told him that the Armenians were only engaging in self-defense. Who cares about conducting objective and professional research, to see if there is any merit to the claim?

The evidence for the Armenians' treachery is voluminous. Crowley could have looked at only two examples, if he had only mustered his professional curiosity. An Armenian historian exposed, for example, that the Armenians were given more than thirteen million dollars (in today's money) by the Russians "at the beginning of the war for the initial cost of arming and preparing the Turkish Armenians and to start riots within the country during the war." Now that is powerful evidence, and simply can't be argued with. If that's not enough, he could have gone to what a primary Armenian leader had to say; Boghos Nubar wrote in early 1919 that "ever since the beginning of the war the Armenians fought by the side of the Allies on all fronts," and that they "indignantly refused to side with Turkey." There is so much more, in the way of evidence, demonstrating the treachery of the Armenians. This was no joke; the Ottomans were threatened with extinction, and the Armenians were an extremely serious threat.

The fact that Michael Crowley allowed himself to sink to the level of repeating the horseshoes-nailed-to-Armenians'-feet story is truly unbelievable. He appears to have no idea that any sensationalistic claim was accepted at face value by the extremely prejudiced Western press, and the fact that he would repeat this ugly propagandistic hearsay without question is simply inexcusable.

Perhaps he got that out of Balakian's "The Burning Tigris." The source: Vahakn Dadrian. The man with very little scholarly ethics, and who has felt free to distort, mistranslate, and take things out of context at leisure, in the support of his patriotic agenda. Just because some Armenian made this story up does not make it true.

But in this day and age, in 2007, someone as sharp as Michael Crowley does not bat an eyelash in repeating such a vicious lie. It's amazing! This is what prejudice does. And of course, Crowley is helping to foster greater prejudice by hammering home the belief for his readers that, yes, the Turks truly are a less-than-human species. It is totally irresponsible.

And it's not as though Crowley has made no attempt to hear the "Turkish perspective":

"The truth, as the Turks see it, is simple: There was no genocide. The Armenian death toll is exaggerated, and most died from exposure or rogue marauders during mass relocations. (One Turkish activist even cheerily assured me that, after the relocations, 'everyone was invited back.') The Turks say that the G-word implies an intent that can't be proved. This stance is more than just a matter of fierce national pride. The Turks are terrified at the prospect of huge financial and territorial reparations for the Armenians.('[C]ash,' drools one Armenian nationalist blogger, 'lots of cash.')"

The above, then, is only the truth as "the Turks see it." So what does it tell us, when a journalist whose duty is to report the truth, actually conducts some investigation to get what the other side has to say, and rejects them out of hand? Because his belief system is evidently too rigid to even consider whether the other side is telling the truth?

Earlier in his article, Crowley apparently felt good about the claim, "the massacre of up to 1.5 million ethnic Armenians in the Ottoman Empire." Is this Armenian death toll exaggerated? Well, it doesn't take very much to find out, does it? Particularly when the evidence disproving the claim almost all emanate from Turk-unfriendly sources, with no reason to lie for the Turks.

Were most Armenians killed from non-murderous reasons, such as famine and disease? The truth-seeker had better believe it, since most Ottomans were dying of these same causes, in the graveyard of the "Sick Man." With the large conscription, few were left to till the fields, as even Morgenthau reported. There were devastating plagues as well, and British naval blockade efforts to starve out the Ottomans. Hygiene was always a problem, and contagious diseases spread like wildfire. More Ottoman soldiers, the nation's only hope for survival, died of these causes than from combat.

This is not rocket science, here; all that is required is some objectivity, and the willingness to look beneath the surface.

After the relocations, were the Armenians "invited back"? One can only be invited back if one had already left for non-Ottoman lands, as was the case for hundreds of thousands of Ottoman Armenians. The rest were already in their own Ottoman nation, resettled in other parts (much of which were taken away by the victorious Allies, by war's end). Many were going back to their homes, even before the tail-end-of-1918 decree allowing the Armenians to officially do so. (Even Dadrian has conceded that the relocation law was a temporary measure.) As for those who had fled the country, it doesn't take much research to find out if the doors were closed or not to Armenians who desired to return. The answer is that Article 6 of the Treaty of Gumru/Alexandropol (December 1921) permitted all Armenians the right to return, within a period of one year. This was superseded by the later Lausanne Treaty, where every Armenian who had once been an Ottoman citizen had until July 24, 1925 to come back to Turkey. (If Armenians did not choose to return, should Turkey be blamed? As to why many decided to stay away, Marmaduke Pickthall provided the overriding reason: “How are [the Armenians] going to live among the peoples they have wronged and angered by their wreckless ‘gamble’?” [
The New Age, April 29, 1920, Vol. XXVI. No. 25.])

Now note the dismissive tone with the sentence, "The Turks say that the G-word implies an intent that can't be proved."
What does that mean? In order to prove a genocide, you've got to prove "intent." That's the law, according to the 1948 U.N. Genocide Convention. (The convention also disallows political groups, as when the Armenians allied themselves with their nation's enemies.) If you can't prove intent, there is no genocide. So if the intent can't be proven, what honorable person would want to use the word "genocide," carrying the racist implication that the Turks were no better than Nazis? This is critical. Would Mike Crowley appreciate it if someone were to accuse him of having committed a ruinous crime without the valid evidence? If Crowley can't come up with the genocidal evidence, then he should be first in line to write, Hey! You can't call this a genocide! (But to him, he already has the evidence. He heard about the horseshoes story. What else does he need?)

"The Turks are terrified at the prospect of huge financial and territorial reparations for the Armenians." I don't think so. Crowley is ignorantly speculating again. For one, the Turks know they have never committed a genocide, ever, in their long history. The truth is on the Turks' side, so they have nothing to fear. Furthermore, Armenia has already surrendered her rights in Article 8 of the Gumru/Alexandropol Treaty. (See link above.) In Arthur Derounian's words, the Armenians agreed "'to forego their rights to ask for damages . . . as a result of the general war,' thus closing the doors FOREVER to reparations for the enormous destruction of Armenian life and property to make reparations claims." (Naturally, in this hateful world, no one ever speaks of the reparations required of Armenians, for the cataclysmic death and destruction they caused while occupying eastern Anatolia. But the Turks surrendered their right in this treaty's same clause, as well.)

In Conclusion...

Reps. Adam Schiff and Frank Pallone are real pieces of work, aren't they? If they are willing to sell out so blatantly for the Armenians, what else can they lose our trust on?







"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.