Tall Armenian Tale


The Other Side of the Falsified Genocide


  Doubts on the "Armenian Genocide" Map  
First Page


Major Players
Links & Misc.



Mahmut Ozan
Edward Tashji
Sam Weems

 It's not the first time Ara Sarafian had locked horns with ANI (The Armenian National Institute), with its director, Rouben P. Adalian (as may be seen here). The following is from an unspecified issue of Armenian Forum.

It takes courage for Ara Sarafian to make a conclusion such as "For the ANI, an organization with an academic director, an academic board, and a substantial endowment, there can be no excuse for such shoddy, incompetent work," particularly since the last time (or, as the last time went over similar issues, this episode might have been an extension of the last one), Dr. Adalian practically accused Sarafian of being an "agent of the Turkish government" (Adalian accused Sarafian of having "ulterior motives") were for even giving the impression of breaking ranks with Armenian claims. Generally, there can be no disagreement with whatever propagandistic claim that is made; in fact, too many Armenian extremists feel the more wild the claim, the greater the display of patriotism for Hai Tahd, or the Armenian Cause. Since the whole foundation of "Armenian genocide scholarship" is shamelessly corrupt, it is almost amusing that ANI is being called on for its dishonesty. But since the "caller" is a fellow (yet milder) propagandist, once again, Ara Sarafian deserves a lot of credit. (But that doesn't mean Mr. Sarafian is off the hook with some of his own claims. A brief look follows.)


Icons and Scholarship

Under Review

Armenian National Institute

The 1915 Armenian Genocide in the Turkish Empire

Washington D.C. 1998

Zadig Khanzadian’s map, Rapport sur l’unité géographique de I’Armenié: Atlas historique (Paris, 1920), has become a central icon of the Armenian Genocide. It was the first attempt to map out the losses of the Genocide, the principal deportation and transit routes, and locations where mass killings had taken place between 1915 and 1917. It illustrated losses in red circles that varied in size according to the populations in question. Given that Khanzadian’s map was printed in 1920, immediately after the cataclysm of 1915, and under very trying circumstances, it is not surprising that many details were left ambiguous, presumably because of a lack of information.[1] Despite its imperfections, the 1920 work was of pioneering significance and remains a milestone in the historiography of the Armenian Genocide.

Some eighty years after the publication of Khanzadian’s work, the Armenian National Institute (ANI) has also produced a map of the Armenian Genocide. This new map purports to be the “latest research” on the Armenian Genocide, and an example of the ANI’s commitment to the “promotion of scholarship.“[2] Though the ANI could have drawn on a great deal of new scholarship for such a map, their “latest research,, is simply an English version of Khanzadian’s 1920 work, combined with a more recent publication by Raymond Kévorkian, "Axes de déportation des populations arméniennes et camps de concentration en 1915-1916.“[3] This fact is obscured by a curious citation, where credit is given to “the Armenian National Institute (ANI) (Washington, DC) and the Nubarian Library (Paris)," and there is no mention of Khanzadian and Kévorkian.[4]

Beyond obscuring the intellectual origins of the work under review, the ANI does a disservice to scholars of the Genocide by ignoring their work in its representation of the “latest research" on the Genocide. Furthermore, instead of correcting the errors and ambiguities of Khanzadian’s map, the ANI reproduces them and introduces new errors that should have been avoided. Here are some examples:

A few different maps were presented with the article; the above map, ubiquitous in too many genocide web sites, is more or less what we are talking about. The last photograph in the article was, in a sense, the most revealing. Its caption read, "This image from the ANI Annual Report for 1998 shows ANI director Rouben P. Adalian, Ph.D., exhibiting the map under review to a group of schoolchildren." This shot was yet another example of how propagandists work on poisoning the minds of impressionable children with genocide hatred, ensuring that the cycle of young recruits will always be kept refreshed, to fight for the "cause."

Dr. Rouben Adalian at a 2005
genocide conference in Yerevan.
Possession of a Ph.D. and a
commitment to truth are not
necessarily related.

(1) The ANI map fails to address the most basic of questions regarding the Khanzadian map that it reproduces: What do the red circles in the 1920 work actually represent? Do they indicate the number of people killed at each locality, or the number of people from each locality who were killed?

Today we have a good understanding of the number of Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire on the eve of World War I, as well as compelling figures regarding how many were killed in Der Zor and other locations.[5] Kévorkian, for example, argues that 870,000 Armenians actually arrived in Syria and Mesopotamia by the end of 1916, and most were killed in the lower Euphrates. The body of Western archival records also supports these figures, clearly shifting the focus of genocidal killings to the south.

As the ANI map stands, the circle at Der Zor is too large if it represents the number of Armenians native to that region killed in the Armenian Genocide (there were fewer than 500 Armenians in 1914), and it is too small if it represents the number of people from other parts of the Ottoman Empire who were killed in Der Zor and surrounding areas (over 300,000).[6]

(2) Today we know more about the events of 1915 than ever before. For example, there is a creditable doctoral dissertation on the manifestation of the Armenian Genocide in Trebizond. [7] We know, for example, that in 1915, there were approximately 5,500 Armenians there. When deportation orders were first announced, a large number of Armenian children were placed into orphanages and later disbursed in Muslim villages.[8] The adult population was deported in four caravans on 1 July 1915 (600 people); 3 July 1915 (2,000 people); 5 July 1915 (2,000 people); and 18 July 1915 (remaining population).[9]

There was, it is true, a report of the mass drowning of ten thousand Armenians from Trebizond in the Black Sea. The New York Times wrote on 7 October 1915 that James Bryce reported that the Italian consul at Trebizond had claimed that ten thousand Armenians had been drowned in one afternoon. But by 1916 Bryce must not have considered the report reliable, since he did not include it in the British Parliamentary Blue Book. [10] Nevertheless, the ANI map includes mass drownings in the Black Sea in its representation of the Armenian Genocide.” [11]

Raymond Kevorkian

Dr. Raymond Kévorkian

Who is this "Armenian scholar" whom Ara Sarafian has evidently placed so much of his trust in? An interview in Aztag Daily, conducted by Katchig Mouradian, sheds some light. (The interview is in French, and you may need the translator depicted by the flags, under "Sections" in the navigation bar above, at left.)

The monsieur tells us that "To write the history and to approach the truth as much as possible are essential for a nation." Well, who can argue with that? Unfortunately, it is all downhill from there. Kevorkian follows up with, "I want to say that henceforth it is not a question any more of asking the proof that an event took place, but to put an end to a need for our national interior health." In other words, the "genocide" is a done deal, and no evidence is necessary, unproven as it is; it is the same line of reasoning Richard Hovannisian tried to get away with, in an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of people trying to get at the truth.

And how does the professor back up his "scholarly" conclusion that the genocide is a settled matter? He tells us, "There is no doubt that the decision to exterminate the Armenians was made from the very start and plays a personal part in the ideology of the CUP [Ottoman government]," the decision for extermination having been made by the end of March. That is the timing Taner Akcam strove for as well, and here is the peculiar way in which he fared with his "proof." We don't know the evidence Kevorkian offers; with the interview, he simply tells us that this is the fact.

Kevorkian actually goes beyond Akcam's mentor, Vahakn Dadrian (who had instructed us that the "genocide" had "all but run its course by 1916," with the "completion of the main part" having been done with by January-February of that year), by telling us that February 1916 actually constituted "the second phase," when "the decision was made to massacre the deportees." And this was after 700,000 had already been killed in the eastern provinces, you see! (Let's do the math, then; you read above that Kevorkian had concluded 870,000 had been resettled by 1916's end, which means — after adding the 700,000 dead — we are already above the 1.5 million pre-war population figure, and we haven't accounted for the half-million or so who had already amscrayed to other lands on their own accord, nor for the 200,000 or so who hadn't been touched in the major cities of the west. Great scholarship!)

He also tells us, as the good little propagandistic soldier that he is, that the "so-called revolt" of Van was simply a pretext, and that "what occurred was not a revolt, but self-defense." (Even Ambassador Morgenthau, not in his propagandistic "Story" book but in an official communication, wrote that "...It would seem as if an Armenian insurrection to help the Russians had broken out at Van." The Parisian newspaper Le Temps, along with so many other Armenian-friendly sources, concurred.  It can't be self-defense if the first shot was fired by the Armenians!)

Kevorkian backs up Dadrian, stating the executioners were indeed Dadrian's invented Gestapo, the Special Organization, and when asked which archival files Kevorkian has given importance to, Kevorkian stresses the U.S. archives, of which "a gigantic work will soon be published, prepared by Ara Sarafian." Bear in mind, the British themselves rejected the American documents while in search of their own "genocide evidence," in preparation for the Malta Tribunal, concluding that they were comprised mainly of "personal opinions," that is, hearsay, and worthless as genuine evidence.

Next, Kevorkian lists the importance of the German, Austrian, French and British files. But, of course, how can one write valid history about a nation by ignoring the archives of the studied nation, and by giving prominence to the nations who were either the enemies of the studied nation, or who had harbored centuries-old prejudice against the studied nation? So it is up to the interviewer to remind Kevorkian, "But what is it possible to say in connection with the Turkish files?" Kevorkian basically replies that these are worthless. He points to "testimonies" that the CUP had either sent the genocidal documents to Ankara during "the last weeks of the war," or "completely destroyed" them. Yes, surely the discombobulated Ottoman leaders had such a priority in mind in the five minutes it took for the British to come in and occupy the nation.

Kevorkian also points to the puppet Ottoman government's 1919-20 courts-martial, the ones that constitute Dadrian's bed and butter; of these, Kevorkian tells us the documents were mainly gathered with the Patriarch, in a "sector of a special office which was called Center of Information," the person in charge being Archag Alboyadjian.  The Patriarch Zaven ordered these materials to be moved out in anticipation of the arrival of Ataturk's forces, and so "These documents were transported to Manchester, then to Marseilles and finally to Jerusalem. All these files, of which very few people are well-informed, are extremely important because they are Turkish and authenticated sources." Yes, they are also the files of the trials that the British regarded as a "farce," and as a travesty of justice, and rejected in preparation of Malta.

Again, it is much to Sarafian's credit to point to the mediocrity of Rouben Adalian as a scholar; so why is Sarafian attaching such importance to the work of Kevorkian the Komedian?

(3) Many Armenians from western Turkey were deported toward Syria by train in cattle trucks. They had to disembark and trek over the Taurus mountains because the railroad was not finished. Many died on the way. Other deportees, thousands of them, were used as forced labor to complete these incomplete sections of the railway. [12] The ANI map shows the railroads as continuous. In the map, the railroad extends several hundred miles to the east of Ras-ul-Ain (where it actually ended in 1915). This information is correct in Khanzadian’s 1920 work, but not in the ANI map of 1998

The publication of the ANI map raises questions about the competence of the ANI as an academic institution. Publications in Armenians studies need to be held to the highest academic standards. The ANI map, sad to say, does not even meet the most forgiving standards. For the ANI, an organization with an academic director, an academic board, and a substantial endowment, there can be no excuse for such shoddy, incompetent work.

Ara Sarafian

This is the 1920 map by Khanzadian and Aram Andonian. Note that it
goes halfway into Turkey and it is called "Armenia," far beyond the borders
of the actual Armenia that was established in 1918. Note in Footnote 1
below that Ara Sarafian agrees the region above "was limited to Armenia."

1. The work was also used to buttress the position of the Armenian National Delegation, which claimed sovereignty over much of western Armenia in the former Ottoman Empire as a final home-land for survivors of the Armenian Genocide. Khanzadian’s map did not show the whole of the Ottoman Empire when representing the Genocide. It excluded, for example, the communities of Boursa, Izmid, and Adabazar. It was limited to Armenia.

2. This claim is made in the ANI Annual Report, 1998.

3. See Revue d’histoire arménienne contemporain (numero spécial): l’extermination des déportés arméniens ottomans dans les camps de concentration de syrie-méspotamie (1915-1916): la deuxiéme phase du génocide (Paris, 1998), pp. 48-49. This work shows the 1915-16 deportation routes, especially the concentration and extermination camps in the lower Euphrates.

4. The fact that the ANI lifted The 1915 Armenian Genocide in the Turkish Empire from the works of Zadig Khanzadian and Raymond Kévorkian is confirmed by the ANI Web site, which mentions the two scholars, but still does not give bibliographic information, including the date of Khanzadian’s work. One is still left with the impression that the ANI map is of recent origin, reflecting the latest research on the Armenian Genocide.

5. For population figures see Raymond Kévorkian and Paul Paboudjian, Les arméniens dans I’empire ottoman à la veille du genocide, (Paris: ARHIS, 1992). In fact, the article that accompanies the Kévorkian map that the ANI has utilized discusses the number of Armenians who perished in Der Zor in great detail. See “Axes de deportation des populations arméniennes et camps de concentration en 1915 1916,” pp. 60-61.

6. At the beginning of 1916, United States consul Jesse B. Jackson estimated that there were 486,000 Armenians in the lower Euphrates, over 300,000 of them in Der Zor and surrounding villages. See J. B. Jackson to Ambassador Morgenthau, communication dated Aleppo, 8 Feb. 1916, National Archives, General Records of the Department of State, Record Group 59, Internal Affairs of Turkey, 1910-1929, Decimal file number 867.48/271. None of these survived by 1918.

7. Kevork Suakjian, “Genocide in Trebizond: A Case Study of Arrneno-Turkish Relations During the First World War,” (Ph..D. diss., Univ. of Nebraska, Lincoln, 1981).

8. For example, see the memoirs of Leo [sic] Surmelian, who was placed in a caravan of children, marched south, and placed into a Muslim family. Some of his fellow children were killed outright because they could not keep up with the convoy. Surmelian, I Ask You Ladies and Gentlemen (New York: EP Dutton, 1945).

9. Suakjian, “Genocide in Trebizond,” pp. 132-36. lo

10. James Bryce and Arnold Toynbee, The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, 1915-1916: Documents Presented to Viscount Grey of Fallodon by Viscount Bryce [Uncensored Edition], ed. and intro. Ara Sarafian (Princeton, N. J.: Gomidas Institute, 2000).

11. A microfilm collection assembled by none other than the ANI’s director includes the dispatches of Oscar Heizer, United States consul in Trebizond, 1915. These dispatches also do not support the reported mass drowning. See National Archives, General Records of the Department of State, Record Group 59, internal Affairs of Turkey, 1910-1929, decimal files 867.4016/94, 103, 114, 128, 210, 224.

12. See Hilmar Kaiser, “The Baghdad Railway and the Armenian Genocide, 1915-1916: A Case Study in German Resistance and Complicity,” in Remembrance and Denial: The Case of the Armenian Genocide, ed. R. G. Hovannisian (Detroit: Wayne State Univ. Press, 1999), pp. 67-112.

Holdwater's Thoughts

Again, we are grateful for Ara Sarafian to have had the guts to perform the very rare feat of pointing out the holes of his fellow propagandists. This is why it's all the more heartbreaking when Mr. Sarafian lapses into his own encounters with the absurd.

We'll just point to a couple of examples, as the idea of this page is not to dissect Ara Sarafian, but to display the dishonesty of Armenian propaganda in general.

Mr. Sarafian already blew his credibility when he tried to legitimize Bryce and Toynbee's Wellington House product, the hateful Blue Book... the accounts of which (as Arnold Toynbee himself had written) almost entirely came from Armenians and their missionary allies. (As though this blatant propaganda should ever substitute for genuine history; Sarafian tried to breathe new life into this work by uncovering the identities of some of the anonymous sources, as if such would have made their statements any more legitimate.) But look at what he says here:

"Kévorkian, for example, argues that 870,000 Armenians actually arrived in Syria and Mesopotamia by the end of 1916, and most were killed in the lower Euphrates. The. body of Western archival records also supports these figures..."

It is possible that so many Armenians were resettled, although it's hard to say. "Western archival records" relied on the word of Armenians and missionaries, not exactly what an objective researcher would point to as reliable information, given the tendency for both parties to "exaggerate." Boghos Nubar, as one example of a source in disagreement, guessed the total to figure in the vicinity of 600,000-700,000, in a letter to a French minister at the end of 1918.

But the eyebrow-raiser is the claim that "most" of these nearly 900,000 were killed. That is a stupefying falsehood. What the body of Western archival figures actually supports is that the pre-war Ottoman-Armenian population hovered near 1.5 million, and even today's worst propagandists concede one million survived. If one does the subtraction, it would be impossible for, say, around 800,000 to have died. If we add the other Ottoman-Armenians who died from other years, that would mean two-thirds of the original population would have been killed, instead of one-third, leaving around half a million alive.

Yet what is most irritating, as Sarafian explains in Footnote 6, is that J. B. Jackson's estimate of 486,000 living and resettled Armenians by early 1916 all had died! That's right, Sarafian actually tells us "None of these survived by 1918," as if there could possibly be any way to verify such a claim. Is it any wonder that after being barraged by such propaganda at the time these events were taking place, Admiral Colby Chester referred to the many survivors as, "In due course of time the deportees, entirely unmassacred and fat and prosperous, returned (if they wished so to do), and an English prisoner of war who was in one of the vacated towns after it had been repopulated told me that he found it filled with these astonishing living ghosts." Lt. General Sir W. N. Congreve concurred in 1919: "... I did not see a thin one amongst a good many thousand I saw, and most looked cheery too. The massacres seem to have been a good deal exaggerated ..."

If most of the resettled did not survive, there is no way one million could have survived from an original population of 1.5 million, and it is sickening for anyone to claim "none" could have survived out of hundreds of thousands. If we really want to get to the bottom of the bulk of the Armenians who had died, it wasn't from the ones who were resettled (not to say too many didn't suffer or die from the awful relocation process), but from the ones who had stayed behind in Eastern Anatolia, committing a massive slaughter upon the remaining Ottoman Muslims and Jews. When the tables turned, a lot were murdered in turn, out of revenge, during this inhuman time. We also know from what Richard Hovannisian wrote in 1967 that nearly 150,000 of the non-resettled Armenians died from famine and disease, while accompanying the Russian retreats. (In addition, thousands similarly died while accompanying the French retreat, after the war.) 150,000 is an entire quarter or more out of the 500,000-600,0000 Armenians who died in all. It is only common sense that it would have been impossible for all of the 486,000 that Consul Jackson estimated to have perished. Why would Ara Sarafian tell us such a thing, following in the footsteps of a shameless windbag such as Vahakn Dadrian?

I also did a double take with Sarafian's claim (Footnote 8) that Leon Surmelian had indicated "children were killed outright because they could not keep up with the convoy." I don't have the book handy to check, but I made certain at the time to record the worst of what Surmelian had written, and as far as "witnessed murders" were concerned, there was a case of one woman who was presumably killed (in the memoirs, no one actually saw the presumed murder; they only heard a rifle shot). It's possible I might have missed something, but even if Surmelian wrote about kids getting killed as well, are we supposed to take the word of one who was eight-years-old at the time, and who grew up to be an "exaggerating" patriot in his own right? (One of the more amusing examples of "genocidal proof" in Surmelian's book was that the mean kids of the Trabzon governor, whom Surmelian was playing with, told young Surmelian that the Armenian child would be marked for death.)

Even if there were lowlife gendarmes (and there certainly were a good few), are we supposed to take from the crimes some may have committed that they were following a state policy? If they were, to cite Sarafian's own words, "None of these [could have] survived by 1918." It would be absolutely ridiculous to think otherwise! (And what of other examples of "Armenian oral history" telling us of a different, non-murderous fate that awaited those who could not go on, such as this one?)

Regarding the famous "genocide map" criticized above, there is a Gomidas page (http://www.gomidas.org/books/map2.htm) where (very likely) Ara Sarafian wrote that the map "was primarily the work of engineer-cartographer Zadig Khanzadian and Aram Andonian, probably the foremost expert on the Armenian Genocide at that time." In other words, this infamously dishonest man, who created such obscene evil with his forgeries, has now been assigned the role of a kind of valid historian. And by, probably, none other than Ara Sarafian himself. It's nothing less than horrifying. (At least we know, if Andonian had a hand in the creation of the famous "genocide map," how reliable it really is.)




"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.