Tall Armenian Tale


The Other Side of the Falsified Genocide


  Turkey Paid $1.3M by 1934 to Settle Armenian Claims  
First Page


Major Players
Links & Misc.



Mahmut Ozan
Edward Tashji
Sam Weems



Armenian Genocide Claims Dismissed

by Roger Alford

(From the Opinio Juris weblog.)

A federal district court in Los Angeles has rendered an important decision dismissing claims for alleged victims of the Armenian Genocide. At issue in Deirmenjian v. Deutsche Bank is a California statute, Code of Civil Procedure § 354.45, which extended until December 31, 2016 the statute of limitations for, inter alia, looted assets claims brought by victims of the Armenian Genocide or their heirs or beneficiaries. Here is the key section of the decision:

Applying Garamendi, and Deutsch, the court concludes that the statute exceeds California's power to engage in foreign affairs. As a result, it cannot apply § 354.45 to extend the statute of limitations on plaintiffs' Class B claims….

The Constitution allocates “the foreign relations power” to the federal government and vests the authority to decide what the nation's foreign policy should be in the executive branch. See Garamendi. The executive has authority to enter into treaties and “executive agreements” with foreign governments, including agreements that resolve the wartime claims of American citizens. The power of the federal government to resolve wartime claims extends not only to claims against a foreign government itself, but also to claims against its nationals, including corporations….

Just as § 354.6 created a cause of action for victims of slave or forced labor during World War II, § 354.45 creates a cause of action for those who were victims of the Armenian Genocide that culminated during World War I, and their heirs and beneficiaries. Like § 354.6, which extended the statute of limitations on forced labor claims to 2010, § 354.45 extends the statute of limitations governing Armenian Genocide claims to 2016. The question is whether the federal government previously exercised its exclusive power to resolve claims arising out of World War I through post-war diplomacy, and thus whether the state statute impermissibly intrudes on the federal government's foreign affairs power.

The answer to this question is clearly yes. In the Claims Agreement Between the United States of America and Turkey (the “Ankara Agreement”), the Republic of Turkey agreed to pay the United States a “lump sum” of $1,300,000 “in full settlement of the claims of American citizens which are embraced by the Agreement of December 24, 1923.” That agreement—embodied in an exchange of notes—in turn provided that the “reciprocal claims” of American and Turkish nationals based on acts occurring during World War I would be adjudicated by a mixed claim commission.

Following payment of the lump sum settlement, Fred. K. Nielsen—who had been assigned to the Turkish-American Claims Commission by the President in February 1933 and who executed the Ankara Agreement on the President's behalf—submitted a report to the Secretary of State to document the process by which the settlement was reached and the manner in which it should be distributed. Nielsen recognized that the “claims of persons ... considered to be persons of Turkish origin under Turkish law” were not filed with (but rather only “furnished to”) the Commission, due to Turkey's refusal to recognize its liability for such claims. Nielsen made clear, however, that the parties intended the Ankara Agreement to be a final settlement of all such claims: “While ... the Commission did not consider the[ ] claims of naturalized citizens of Turkish origin [in reaching the amount of the lump sum settlement], the Agreement of October 25, 1934 concluded by the two Governments was framed to effect a final settlement of all outstanding claims of the nationals of each country against the other ...” Nielsen stated that Article II of the Ankara Agreement-which provides that “the Government of the Republic of Turkey will be released from liability with respect to all [claims of American citizens which are embraced by the Agreement of December 24, 1923],” and that “every [such] claim ... shall be considered and treated as finally settled”-was intended to effectuate a universal settlement of all claims “in harmony with international practice in relation to such matters,” as exemplified by previously executed reparations treaties that contained facially broader release and settlement clauses.

Nielsen's report is reflective of the diplomatic negotiations that culminated in the execution of the Ankara Agreement. As letters exchanged by the parties prior to execution of the agreement make clear, the “lump sum” settlement was in lieu of the separate adjudication of disputed claims before a mixed claims commission, and was intended to settle the wartime claims of American nationals of both Ottoman and non-Ottoman origin....

In short, the executive agreements into which the United States and Turkey entered following World War I demonstrate that the United States elected to settle the claims of victims of the Armenian Genocide through the Ankara Agreement. While California may consider the settlement the United States reached inadequate, see generally S.B. 1524, “[t]he federal government, acting under its foreign affairs authority, provided its own resolution to the war [and] California has no power to modify that resolution.”

It is worth emphasizing that the Ankara Agreement itself did not include claims of Armenians in the lump sum settlement amount, as Turkey refused to recognize its liability for those claims. But based on the Nielsen report, the claims of all Americans, including Armenian-Americans, were resolved in the Ankara Agreement. In other words, the United States agreed to waive all compensation for claims of Armenian-Americans, and thereby preempted the right of those individuals to individually pursue their claims. The Ankara Agreement does not say that, but the court concluded that the negotiating history as set forth by Nielsen reflects that intent.

 Holdwater Reflects

Now what do you make of this, ladies and gentlemen?

When I started reading this article, I was fully curious as to how Deutsche Bank got off the hook when a few other insurance companies had buckled down to genocide politics in years past. This is not to say "1915" Armenians who had insurance policies and were stiffed by the not-always-honest practices of insurance firms should not have been reimbursed; but long years have passed, the original policyholders are gone, and they or their relatives already have had the opportunity to confront these insurance companies, if they wished to pursue injustices. In short,  we all know a money-grubbing scheme when we see one. (Today's "alleged victims of the Armenian Genocide" — and thanks to writer Roger Alford for having the rare integrity to have added the word, "alleged" — that is, the ones hoping to collect the cash from this case, have nothing to do with any of the  real victims going back nearly a century! The Armenians living in America today are not victims.)

But then this article turned into something completely different. Turkey has already financially addressed the “claims of American citizens" with a "full settlement" that was "embraced by the Agreement of December 24, 1923” ??

Now why would Turkey have gone and done something like that, especially when Turkey had nothing in 1923 ($1.3 million was an enormous chunk of money for the time, which the honorable Turks made sure to pay in the next few years. (Contrast with the $50 million loan the USA made to Armenia in good faith, in 1919, a good part or all of which was to paid back with 5% interest; so far not a cent has been paid back.) Particularly with a nation, the United States of America, that — thanks to the arm-twisting by its Armenians and their racist American supporters of the period — skipped the Lausanne Agreement?

And what about the Gumru Treaty of 1920 between Armenia and Turkey, where Article 8 had stated:

"Despite the great expenses which the Grand Assembly of Turkey incurred for its army during two years because of the urgency of the war it had to wage against Armenia, it renounces its right to demand lawful damages, and in the same manner the two parties forego their rights to ask for damages because of the changes which took place as a result of the general war."

(A heartbroken John Roy Carlson, a.k.a. Arthur Derounian, aghast at the betrayal of Dashnaks, emphasized the word "FOREVER," in describing the above.)

I am at a loss at this point to understand why Turkey, which was so broke and desperate in 1923, would have kowtowed to this agreement. My only guess is that Armenian pressure in the USA was so strong, that Turkey must have felt a price was necessary to sustain good relations with their new and powerful friend, the USA. (And Admiral Mark Bristol's clout appears now to have been somewhat overrated.)

At least, as Mr. Alford reports, "Turkey refused to recognize its liability for those claims." Perhaps Ataturk's government rationalized this payment as a humanitarian gesture, since they made a point of not admitting guilt.

I also don't quite understand how this settlement would have gotten Deutsche Bank off the hook from its own possible "direct" responsibility to one-time policyholders. Assuming this was another "insurance policy lawsuit," in which case the other insurance companies who ponied up millions of dollars to money-grubbing Armenians must now be kicking themselves.

Yet this matter raises several questions.

For one thing, those Armenian-Americans as Prof. Dennis Papazian will now need to rethink their hopes on getting "restitution." (Prof. Papazian, who wasn't even alive during those tragic years, actually thinks of himself as a "victim." In Prof. Papazian's case, with all the vicious and hateful propaganda he has been spreading over the years, he would be more correctly identified as a "victimizer.")

The agreement above, much as it concerns "naturalized [American] citizens of Turkish origin," obviously covers Armenians exclusively.

The second thing I'm now wondering about is, what about all the some 500,000 Turks, Kurds, Jews and others who were ruthlessly and systematically slaughtered by the Armenians, with Russian help, on and off between 1914 and 1918/20? Why are the needs of these unsung victims not being heeded? What about the enormous theft and loss and property the Armenians incurred on all of these people?

How many of today's Turkish-Americans can classify themselves as "victims," in the same manner that these greedy Armenian-Americans hoping to collect all of this moolah, who had no bearing with the actual "heirs and descendants" of those involved in these events?

It seems to me that it is high time that the American government negotiate just such a settlement with the Republic of Armenia. (What is the equivalent of $1.3 million, these days?)

Of course I am kidding. In Turk-racist Western society, this scenario could never take place, even if I were serious. But in all seriousness, in principle, why is there no such settlement for the many, many, many unknown thousands who fatally suffered so excruciatingly, and who had so much property looted or destroyed, under the sadistic hands of Armenian killers?






"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.