Tall Armenian Tale


The Other Side of the Falsified Genocide


  Stirrings of Armenian Betrayal... in 1878  
First Page


Major Players
Links & Misc.


Mahmut Ozan
Edward Tashji
Sam Weems


British Ambassador Layard’s March 18, 1878 letter to the Earl of Derby in which he conveys the attitudes of Archbishop of Narsis, the Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople. 

London: Public Records Office—F.0.424/68, pp. 346-348,  No. 639.


Holdwater's Comments Follow.


The Armenians ... would appeal to Russia, and would not cease to agitate until they were annexed to her.

March 18, 1878

By my despatch No. 364 of to-day I have transmitted a letter addressed to your Lordship by Archbishop Narsis, the Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople. When his Eminence called upon me to request that I would forward this letter he took occasion to enter very fully into the position and grievances of the Armenian nation or community. Your Lordship will remember that last year his Eminence was anxious to persuade me that his people were not dissatisfied with the Turkish rule, and that they greatly preferred remaining under it to being transferred to that of Russia. He even declared their readiness to enroll themselves in the Turkish army, or to be formed into a local force for the defence of the Turkish territory. His Eminence admitted to me when I saw him yesterday that such had been the case. But he said that since the Russian success, and especially since it had become known that Russia had stipulated in one of the Articles of the preliminaries of Peace for administrative reforms for Armenia, the state of affairs had completely changed. The Armenians were now greatly irritated against him for having put Russia against them by giving his support to the Turkish Government, and “threatened to stone him.’ The fact that a large number of their fellow countrymen had been transferred to Christian rule by the annexation of a part of Armenia to Russia, and that autonomous Government was about to be conceded to the Christian populations of European Turkey, naturally led them to demand the same privileges. Their hatred of Mahommedan rule had been increased by the excesses committed by the Kurds upon the Armenians inhabitants of the Province of Van and of the district of Bayazid, for which he had in vain appealed to the Porte for redress. The Armenians were now determined to assert their rights, and to claim to be placed upon the same footing as their fellow-Christians elsewhere. If they could not obtain what they asked from the justice and through the intervention of Europe, they would appeal to Russia, and would not cease to agitate until they were annexed to her. Already, his Eminence said, a large portion of the Christian population of Armenia was preparing to emigrate to the territories ceded to Russia. He trusted, therefore, that the demands of the Armenians for an autonomous Christian Government would be taken into favourable consideration at the Congress, and that Europe would insist upon the formation of a self-governing Armenian province.

His Excellency showed me the copy of a letter which he had addressed to Prince Bismarck, soliciting his Highness’s protection and good offices for the Armenians. He had sent it through Prince Reuss, who, as I have had occasion to inform your Lordship, has been in frequent communication of late with the heads of the Armenian community, with the object, I am assured, of detaching them from their allegiance to the Sultan, and of promoting the policy of Russia.

  (The Armenian Patriarch) maintained that the Turks ... would willingly accept a Christian Government which would afford them protection for their lives and property.

 I asked the Patriarch what he understood by “Armenia,” and what part of Turkey in Asia he considered ought to be included in the autonomous province that he had in view. His Eminence replied that Armenia should contain the Pashalics of Van and Sivas, the greater part of that of Diarbekir, and the ancient kingdom of Cilicia (or the province on the northern boundary of Syria, and extending to the west from the Taurus range to the sea). I pointed out to his Eminence that what he asked was a very large slice indeed out of the territories remaining to the Sultan in Asia Minor, and that in the provinces he had mentioned, I had reason to believe, a very large majority of the population consisted of Mussulmans. He did not deny that such was the case; but he maintained that the Turks themselves were greatly dissatisfied with the rule of the Porte, and would willingly accept a Christian Government which would afford them protection for their lives and property.

To a remark that I made to the Patriarch that I did not think it probable that the Congress would entertain so vast a project as that which he had placed before me, his Eminence replied that if it did not do so, and did not listen to the just demands of the Armenians, the country to which he had referred would rise, within a short time, against Turkish rule, and would annex itself to Russia. He further observed that amongst the Generals and high functionaries employed by Russia in Georgia and Armenia were many Armenians, some of whom had greatly distinguished themselves during the war; that they were in close relations with their brethren in Turkey, and that whatever his own personal views might be — and he was simple priest, and had no mundane ambition — his people were determined no longer to submit to Mahommedan rule, and he could not oppose himself to their wishes.

...Intrigues and insurrections in all parts of the Sultan’s dominions... must inevitably lead, sooner or later, to very serious results.


I recount my conversation with the Patriarch to your Lordship, as it tends to confirm what I have ventured to submit in other despatches with respect to the danger of exciting the hopes and desires of other populations of the Turkish Empire by according to those of European Turkey autonomous institutions. An encouragement is thus given to intrigues and insurrections in all parts of the Sultan’s dominions, and to attempts to throw off his authority and that of his Government which must inevitably lead, sooner or later, to very serious results. If I am not misinformed such intrigues are now carried on very actively and extensively for this object. The movement amongst the Armenians is probably caused by these. It is not improbable that we shall, ere long, hear of similar movements amongst the Mussulman as well as Christian populations of other parts of Asiatic Turkey, including Syria. They may take the form in Africa of a demand for complete independence from the Porte. The falling to pieces and dismemberment of the Turkish Empire may be in the eyes of some a desirable event, but England ought at least to be prepared for the consequences. That an autonomous State, such as the “Armenia” of the Patriarch, could long preserve even its semi-independence, no one acquainted with the populations which inhabit the provinces it is proposed by sanguine Armenians to include within its boundaries, could for one moment believe. Autonomy must end in annexation to Russia, an event which the Patriarch evidently seemed to contemplate. How far would it suit the interests of England that Russia should extend her dominion over so large an additional portion of Asia Minor and up to the very borders of Syria? That she will ultimately do so appears to me one of the results of her annexation of Eastern Armenia as far south as Bayazid.

The Patriarch requested me to consider our conversation confidential, as he was afraid that he would compromise himself with the Turkish Government if what had passed between us came to be known.

I have, &c.

(Signed) A.H. Layard

A Population Elaboration for the Six Vilayets


The area claimed as "Turkish Armenia" was commonly known as the Six Vilayets -- Van, Bitlis, Mamuretulaziz, Diyarbakir, Sivas, and Erzurum. In 1912, there were only 870,000 Armenians in the Six Vilayets as a whole. In some provinces of the Six Vilayets, Muslims outnumbered Armenians six to one. Moreover, Armenians were settled all over the Ottoman Empire, not simply in the East. As many Armenians lived in the rest of the Ottoman Empire as in the Six Vilayets. However, even if all the Armenians of the Empire had come together to live in Eastern Anatolia, the Muslims would still have outnumbered them by more than two to one. The impossibility of building a modern state with such numbers is obvious.

Justin McCarthy, Professor, University of Louisville, "Armenian Terrorism History as Poison and Antidote."

Holdwater: And this is precisely why Armenians, with the help of the Russians, cold-bloodedly and criminally murdered or drove out the Muslims who outnumbered them in what is now present-day Armenia... and repeated such tactics in the early 1990s, in Azerbaijan.

Some Things Never Change


From the letter above:

...His Eminence replied that if (Britain)... did not listen to the just demands of the Armenians, the country to which he had referred would rise, within a short time, against Turkish rule, and would annex itself to Russia. He further observed ...(Russian)  Armenians... were in close relations with their brethren in Turkey, and that whatever his own personal views might be — and he was simple priest, and had no mundane ambition — his people were determined no longer to submit to Mahommedan rule, and he could not oppose himself to their wishes.


Kevork Donabedian, the editor of The Armenian Weekly, an ethnic newspaper published in the United States, as quoted in the November 18, 1980 issue of The Christian Science Monitor:

“As an Armenian, I never condone terrorism, but there must be a reason behind this. Maybe the terrorism will work. It worked for the Jews. They have Israel.“


Notice how the "simple priest" removes himself from the potential violence to come, while at the same time he is obviously very supportive and enthusiastic of such actions. Armenians! When will they accept responsibility for the things they do, instead of trying to have it both ways?

As Heath Lowry masterfully observed in his report, "Armenian Terrorism: Threads of Continuity":

This attitude which may be typified as the “of course we don’t condone terrorism, but we must understand the deep sense of frustration experienced by these young men as a result of the great historical injustice done to the Armenians by the Turks, etc. etc.”, is repeated in the wake of every assassination, by a variety of Armenian academicians, spokesmen, and religious leaders. What it amounts to is nothing more than a token distancing of oneself from the actual event with the almost ritual “of course we don’t condone terrorism,” followed by a repetition of the same catalogue of charges concerning allegations of “massacres” and “genocide” against the Ottoman Empire of 1914-1915.


Unfortunately, terrorism is not a topic towards which one may adopt a ‘lukewarm’ response. You cannot say: “My form of terrorism is justified, but I don’t approve of terrorism.” It is clearly a ya hep ya hiç ('all or nothing’) proposition. By failing to openly CONDEMN the senseless killings perpetrated by Armenian terrorists, both the Armenian Church and the Armenian Press are giving their ‘stamp of approval’ to these activities. Bearing in mind that the overwhelming majority of Armenians fail to make their voices heard on this issue, out of fear, we are faced with a situation where almost the entire Armenian community of the Diaspora, in one form or another, tacitly support the activities of Armenian terrorists.

Holdwater, returning: And this, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly why Armenians have no one to blame but themselves for the tragedies that befell their people during the relocations that were the natural result of the treachery of their terrorist leaders.




"West" Accounts


Armenian Views
Geno. Scholars


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.