2418) The Armenian Question Answered - PoliGazette

At PoliGazette we like to offer readers a chance to actively participate in the debate. We do that by allowing you all to comment, but we also encourage you to send us guest posts, which we will then publish. If you’ve got something to say, and want to do so by writing an article for PoliGazette contact me at michaelATpoligazetteDOTcom. Today’s guest post is written by Turkish American reader Kemal. The title is “The Armenian Question Answered.”
Michael van der Galien April 7, 2008
. .

An Overview
WWI hostilities involving the Ottoman Empire ended with the Armistice of Mudros, signed Oct. 30, 1918. The Armistice guaranteed the Ottoman Empire all lands it possessed when the Armistice was signed. The Armistice also required the Ottoman military and citizens to disarm immediately. As Ottomans disarmed, in breach of the Armistice, British military forces pushed north and conquered Mosul and Kirkuk, lands the Ottomans possessed when the Armistice was signed. Why? Oil.

British forces also occupied Istanbul, the Ottoman capitol. Italian forces landed in the southwest and moved north. To ensure the Italians did not take more than their “fair share”, Greece invaded Turkey with Britain’s support, landing in Izmir on May 15, 1919 and began moving east. Meanwhile, France and the “French” Armenian Legion invaded southeast Anatolia to “liberate” it from its majority Ottoman Muslim citizens and committed countless massacres of the civilian population along the way.

The Entente Powers planned to divide Ottoman lands among themselves and push the millions of indigenous Muslim Ottoman citizens into a small piece of land in the middle of Anatolia. The Picot-Sykes agreement evidences that the Entente Powers planned as early as 1916 to occupy and divide Anatolia among themselves.

Turkish Nationalist forces were formed under former Ottoman military leaders, like Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, Ismet Inonu, and Kazim Karabekir, in reaction to, and to counter, the invading foreign armies.

Anatolia was invaded and occupied after WWI with the intent to partition it as the spoils of war among the Entente Powers, Greece and Armenians. This is a very important piece of history in relation to Armenian genocide claims because the effort to arm Armenians and use them to obtain control over southeastern Anatolia started long before WWI, and was funded and supported by England, France, Russia and the U.S.

The Armenians lost that war. Now, they call it genocide in an effort to obtain through political pressure and “moral” opprobrium lands they could not obtain by force and in which they were never the majority.

A Step Back In Time
Even as it lost its former power and ability to expand, European countries and Russia saw the Ottoman Empire as a continuing threat and, of course, each country had its own expansionist aims. Rather than exercise physical dominion over other lands, European countries wanted to exercise “influence” over areas that would benefit their trade with the far east. The Ottomans were seen as a potential barrier should they ever become “unfriendly.” And, of course, xenophobia and prejudice played their respective roles.

The Ottoman Empire had always been a multi-ethnic and multi-religious regime. When Ottomans conquered lands during their expansionist phase through the 1600s, they left the indigenous people to continue on with their own culture, language, religion and left them answerable and subject to the rule of their own religious leaders in communal affairs. The Ottomans added a layer of “federal” rule on top of that. Rather than imposing the adoption of an “Ottoman Muslim” identity, they left the ethnic, social and cultural identities of people intact. In the end, this practice, which had allowed the Empire to flourish as the most tolerant multi-ethnic and multi-religious Empire of its time, became its Achilles heel of vulnerability.

The Demise of the Empire—First, Divide the People
Starting in the 1800s European powers, influenced by the French revolution, began to exploit ethnic identity in the Ottoman Empire to divide its people and bring down its rule.

This occurred first in the Balkans where Ottoman Greeks, Bulgarians, Romanians and others began revolting against the Ottoman regime with the support of England, France and Russia. The Ottoman Empire lost almost all of its Balkan territories due to those ethnic and religious based nationalist movements.

Before the various Balkan nationalist movements began, millions of Ottoman Muslims lived in those lands. However, during those nationalist movements Ottoman Muslims were ethnically cleansed from the Balkans to form ethnically homogeneous nations unified by religion. Thus, Slavic people (Bulgarian, Romanian, Serb, Croat) and Greeks who had converted to Islam for whatever reason during the past 300 years were forced to flee or were massacred. One demographer’s research revealed that Anatolia absorbed over 7 million such refugees from 1820-1923. That is why the people of Turkey today are comprised of a broad mosaic of ethnicities and today the label “Turkish”, like the label “American”, refers to a nationality, not an ethnicity.

After the Ottomans lost the Balkans, the next ethnic group Europe and Russia chose to exploit for the same purpose were Ottoman Armenians. Europe and Russia began helping Ottoman Armenians to organize the same type of nationalist movement against the Ottoman regime in earnest in the 1890s. The Armenian movement came to a head during WWI. Having already relived the same experience in the Balkans, during WWI, the Ottoman regime sought to move Armenians away from the Russian front where Armenian revolutionaries were effectively impeding Ottoman military efforts to defend southeastern Ottoman territory from Russian invasion.

WWI and the Armenian Relocations
While the Ottoman regime could have engaged in all-out war against their Armenian population, they did not. They instead chose to relocate them to another part of the Empire. There were two reasons for this.

First, Armenian revolutionaries were fighting a guerrilla war and thus, hiding among the civilian population so that Ottoman military forces could not effectively distinguish between who was a militant and who was not because not all Ottoman Armenians had joined “the cause.” Second, Armenian revolutionaries were committing massacres among the civilian Ottoman Muslim and Jewish population, which caused those civilians to retaliate against Ottoman Armenians in their midst. Armenian revolutionaries were also killing Ottoman Armenians who refused to assist Armenian revolutionaries. Thus began a continuous cycle of “vigilante justice” in which it was mostly the innocent— Muslim, Jewish and Armenian— who suffered. The Ottoman regime also wanted to end this cycle of civilian massacres. The least restrictive national security measure available then was to relocate Ottoman Armenians in eastern Anatolia until WWI ended, which is what they did.

The conditions under which the relocations were undertaken were difficult. The Entente Powers had blockaded the Ottoman Empire and WWI had disrupted all agriculture. There were widespread famines throughout the Empire. Everyone, including Ottoman soldiers, was subject to starvation. There were also widespread epidemics of typhoid and other fatal diseases which caused death indiscriminately among Ottomans of every ethnicity and religion.

In addition, during the relocations, the Ottoman military was engaged on multiple fronts, defending its borders at Gallipoli, in the Holy Lands and the East. The WWI front effectively encircled the entire Empire. Thus, there were few military and security forces available to protect caravans of relocating Armenians from attacks by tribal Kurds, with whom Ottoman Armenians in southeast Anatolia had a troubled history. Security forces that did not defend or allowed such raids to occur were prosecuted by the Ottoman regime, but during WWI, the Ottoman regime’s ability to maintain law and order to protect its citizens, regardless of ethnicity or religion, was greatly diminished.

It is under these circumstances that Ottoman Armenians, Muslims and Jews in southeastern Anatolia died in large numbers. No one has yet provided an accurate count of all the Ottoman Muslim and Jewish dead due to mass migrations and massacres resulting from Russian invasions into southeastern Anatolia supported by Armenian militants during WWI. Nor has anyone counted the number of dead Ottoman Muslims and Jews due to starvation and raging epidemics. Nor is the number of Ottoman Armenian dead certain, as evidenced by the continually changing numbers put forth since WWI by the Armenian Diaspora without regard to cause of death. Initially, it was 600,000 dead, then 800,000, next 1 million, and now it ranges from 1.5 to 2 million.

So why then has the Armenian genocide questions raged for as long as it has? For a number of reasons.

Forged Documents
As noted above, Anatolia was occupied after WWI.

When the British took control of Istanbul, they were eager to discredit the Ottoman regime and support their efforts to justify division of Ottoman lands as spoils of war. The British thus offered rewards for evidence of war crimes against the Ottoman regime.

In response, a burgeoning trade in forged documents developed and a false history began to be written. The most notorious of these forgeries are the “Andonian” documents or “Talaat Pasha Telegrams.” Andonian, an Armenian, produced what he claimed were telegrams in which Talaat Pasha, one of the three military officers running the Ottoman Empire during WWI, ordered the extermination of the entire Ottoman Armenian population. Although they are proven forgeries, the Armenian Diaspora still relies on these documents and promotes them as proof of their claims.

False Quotes
There are also false quotes attributed to Hitler and Atatürk that Armenians insist are proof of a genocide during WWI. Although the Atatürk and Hitler quotes have been proven false, even by Armenian historians, the Armenian Diaspora continues to rely upon these quotes.

Silence from the Turks and the government of Turkey has also allowed genocide claims to flourish at will.

As Turkish nationalist forces expelled foreign armies from Anatolia, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk tasked members of the Turkish nationalist forces, including Halide Edip, with documenting atrocities foreign forces occupying Anatolia committed by interviewing survivors. In her memoirs, The Turkish Ordeal, Edip reveals that among the atrocities committed were incidents of massacres, intentional destruction of all agricultural efforts and infrastructure, and mass rape of local women by invading militias.

Edip notes in her book, that as she interviewed peasants to document atrocities, survivors told her they did not care to revisit the past, but wanted instead to tell their new leaders what they needed to rebuild their lives. They needed seed to plant, equipment to farm and to rebuild their homes before winter snows. They saw no benefit in her assigned task of revisiting and reliving recent horrors. They wanted to move forward and reclaim their lives, not live in the past and languish in misery.

Rebuilding the Future
There is another reason Turks did not want to remain buried in the past that no one discusses. Mass rapes have a predictable end result: children. Many of the women who suffered the unimaginable atrocity of mass rape later gave birth to children that they and their villages raised without revealing the truth about how they were conceived. To dwell on such atrocities would not remove the trauma or result in the conviction of the perpetrators. It would only stain and stigmatize the women and their children—victims victimized again. Just as there is silence today concerning the mass rapes and the children born of that heinous crime during the break up of the former Yugoslavia, the people of Anatolia chose to pursue their future, rather than vengeance for the past.

In light of the spurious genocide claims against Turkey which seem to be all the rage today, was that the right thing to do? Without a doubt, yes.

After the foreign occupying forces had their way with her, Anatolia was almost uniformly left in ruins. The Nationalists that formed the Republic of Turkey were left to build a country and society from scratch, which they did. Only 85 years later, the Republic of Turkey today is an applicant for EU membership, is participating in all sectors of the global economy and flourishing. In contrast, Armenia, which has chosen to pursue vengeance for a history of its own distortion, has not done as well. The innate desire of Anatolians to focus on the future and their resilience enabled them to successfully raise the modern, independent and free Republic of Turkey out of the ruins of a fallen empire.

It is clear that the citizens of the Republic of Turkey chose the most productive path for themselves and, most importantly, for the welfare of their children.

Self-Defense is not Genocide
As for genocide claims, the truth is slowly coming out. As Turks now turn their attention to the global political arena and their image abroad, people will learn and know that Turks will never concede that defending one’s land from foreign invasion is genocide.

If anyone is to blame or should apologize for what happened to Ottoman Armenians, it is England, France, Russia and the U.S. They encouraged, supported and armed Ottoman Armenian militants, and then abandoned them when it became clear Armenian militias could not defeat Turkish Nationalist forces who were defending their lands, and fighting for their lives, their independence and freedom from occupation.

Ghazi Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, The Great Speech (Atatürk Research Center 2005).

Hratch Dasnabedian, History of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation: Dashnaktsutiun 1890-1924 (Grafiche Editoriali Ambrosiane/Milan 1990).

Halide Edib, The Turkish Ordeal: Being the Further Memoirs of Halide Edib (The Century Co. 1928).

Hovhannes Katchaznouni, Dashnagtzoutium Has Nothing to do Anymore: The Manifesto of Hovhannes Katchaznouni, First Prime Minister of the Independent Armenian Republic (Armenian Information Services 1955).

Kemal H. Karpat, Ottoman Population 1830-1914: Demographic and Social Characteristics (Univ. of Wisconsin Press 1985).

Guenter Lewy, The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide (University of Utah Press 1995).

Heath W. Lowry, “The U.S. Congress and Adolf Hitler on the Armenians”, Political Communication and Persuasion, New York, III/2 (1985), pp. 111-140.

Andrew Mango, Atatürk: The Biography of the Founder of Modern Turkey (Overlook Press 1999).

Justin McCarthy, Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922 (Darwin Press 1995).

Louise Nalbandian, The Armenian Revolutionary Movement (University of California Press 1963).

Garegin Pasdermadjian, Why Armenia Should be Free: Armenia’s Role in the Present War (Hairenik Publishing Co. 1918).

Stanford J. Shaw & Ezel Kural Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, Volume II: Reform, Revolution and Republic; The Rise of Modern Turkey 1808-1975 (Cambridge University Press 1977).

Salahi Ramsdam Sonyel, The Ottoman Armenians: Victims of Great Power Diplomacy (K. Rustem & Brother 1987).

James H. Tashjian, “On a ‘Statement’ Condemning the Armenian Genocide of 1915-18 Attributed in Error to Mustafa Kemal, Later ‘The Atatürk’”, Armenian Review, Vol. 35 (3), 1982, pp. 227-244.

April 7, 2008
Author opens his alleged Answer to the Armenian Question with explanation of 1918 invasions. He follows up with "The Armenians lost that war. Now, they call it genocide in an effort to obtain through political pressure".

The genocide is 1915, not 1918. The French legion of Armenians was mostly made up of volunteers from America, France, etc. and was as a direct response to 1915. Nor can it be seen as representative of the Armenian state as a whole, as there were a few hundred total in it. The bulk of what is known as the genocide today was over by 1917 with the vast majority of the population dead. "In the end, this practice, which had allowed the Empire to flourish as the most tolerant multi-ethnic and multi-religious Empire of its time, became its Achilles heel of vulnerability."Yes, the tolerance was exemplary during the 1600s. Thing is nothing changed by the 20th century when the outside world had. Hence "sick man of Europe". The minorities were second class citizens in an age of nationalism. Anyone who said things were just great for Armenians in the last year of the empire and had absolutely no qualms or problems are terribly misguided and are likely looking at it from the perspective of the autocratic sultan in power without considering the others involved.

"While the Ottoman regime could have engaged in all-out war against their Armenian population, they did not. They instead chose to relocate them to another part of the Empire."Sending the entire population to the deserts, composed largely of woman and children who couldn’t defend themselves anyway, where a super majority of them died? How is that anything but war by another name? "Second, Armenian revolutionaries were committing massacres among the civilian Ottoman Muslim and Jewish population, which caused those civilians to retaliate against Ottoman Armenians in their midst"Sure this is easy to claim, but notice no Turkish sources ever back it up. The only numbers ever produced are Halacioglu, who does his work for the Turkish government, and his examples of massacres by Armenians (while exaggerations to begin with) don’t mention events being before 1915. A check of the archives will show the reports just before the genocide had Armenians as exemplary citizens at peace. Of course there were some amongst them who advocated rebellion because they were not content with their second class status, but name me a minority (including Turks) in any autocratic empire who weren’t advocating rebellion at this time?And then the article just slides into pock shots like "Armenians make up false quotes!!", forgetting that a huge degree of quotes used by the official Turkish historians are misrepresented or unsourced- as in a source is listed that has never been tracked down because they don’t appear to exist. If anything this allegation is a two way street, and besides I don’t think anyone uses the Hitler quote as direct reason for why it is a genocide since the word hadn’t been made up with during his time. While it is used often it is never fielded as the be-all reason why these events were real. I don’t understand the "rebuilding the future" paragraph about mass rapes. "Many of the women who suffered the unimaginable atrocity of mass rape later gave birth to children that they and their villages raised without revealing the truth about how they were conceived." It doesn’t state who raped whom. Is this seriously saying that Turks forgot 1915 because Armenians mass raped them or something?? And that all their kids are half Armenian so they want to keep that a secret?? It never lists ethnicities so I don’t know what’s meant but is it referring to the mass rape of Armenians? Many were taken/rescued from the death marches and taken into Turkish homes and harems where they lived as a wife and became Turkish. Some Armenian women gave birth to Turkish children but eventually escaped, leaving those children behind. Memoirs like that of Fetiye Cetin are examples of the number of hidden or secret Armenians who were raised as Turks and never told of their Armenian background. While I am not ruling out that there were ever Armenian rapes of Turks because I see no reason why that couldn’t have happened as well, it’s more than clear that the main story taken away from this is that of rape of Armenians and the many secret children raised as Turks.

See this for an example: http://www.genocide-museum.am/online_exhibition_2.htmlAnd the article goes on and on… essentially if Turks want to keep replicating the story of 1915 and replace Armenians with Turks, they can talk about alleged rapes and massacres forever without reliable sourcing and writing off all parts of the Armenian story as complete lies despite the scholarship which backs it up go ahead. As this article by Kemal demonstrates its not hard, but it’s just taking us around in a circle going absolutely nowhere. Instead of every single person seeing themself as a genocide-genius who knows all about everything despite an ounce of research outside the Turkish government propaganda sites and without the need to source a single statement, getting a mind for what makes actual valid research is vital if we are to have an intelligent inquiry into these events.

April 7, 2008
Edited by MvdG

April 7, 2008
It is great to know all of this. What an eye opener!

April 7, 2008

You talk about Europeans causing division in the Ottoman Empire, and don’t cite examples of how they did that. The truth is that even though Europeans sympathized with these ethnic separatists and this led them to help finance them in their cause; the revolutions started on their own from pressures inside the Ottoman empire.

Greeks had in fact tried to revolt several times before, and were led to the revolution by Greek intellectuals who were individually inspired and influenced by the French Revolution. In other words, these revolts began because the people believed in them, and were emboldened and empowered by the example France, not because of covert European operations.

You also talk as if these ethnic groups had no reason to want to form a revolt, as they were perfectly happy under Ottoman rule until meddling Europe came along and convinced them they weren’t happy.

April 7, 2008

Exactly. Apologists for what happened to the Christian population of Turkey never quite qualify what a deteriorating multiethnic empire meant for the most structurally vulnerable demographic and religious minorities.

Kemal, thanks but no thanks for your "answer" to the Armenian question.

P. Connolly
April 7, 2008
Response to post #1 above:
> Hence the ‘Sick man of Europe’…
The phrase ‘Sick man of Europe’ originated from a statement made by the Czar of Russia in the Mid 19th century to the representative of the British Government. In this statement, the Czar of Christian “Holy Russia” made veiled overtures to the British Government attempting to reach an agreement as to how the pieces of the Crumbling Ottoman Empire might be equitably divided between them after the its demise which was rightly seen as imminent. The “sick man” analogy referred to the general political weakness and imminent demise of this old and once-mighty empire which at it’s height had caused Europe to tremble. It is a misrepresentation of fact to link the “sick man” label with the treatment of minorities in the Ottoman Empire especially in view of the fact that it was uttered at a time when Slavery was at its height in the US, and the centuries-old persecution of Jews -especially in Europe- was marching inexorably toward that climax which we now call “the Holocaust”. This frequent incorrect use of the “sick man” label by Armenian Propagandists is one of many evidences of the fanaticism and weakness which characterizes the Armenian “scholars”.

> Sending the entire population to the deserts, composed largely of woman and children…
The military threat from Armenians was very real, and as the author correctly states, the Turkish Authorities “… could not effectively distinguish between who was a militant and who was not because not all Ottoman Armenians had joined ‘the cause’ “. This is the key to the whole issue. Of course the logical objection is to insist “…but women and children?”. There can be no doubt that some of the Armenian women supported the few Armenian men who had taken to methods of terrorism and revolution. Does this justify relocating entire groups of Armenians? Can we justify the dropping of the Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Like the Armenian case, thousands of innocent women and children were instantly killed while many others were subjected to radiation which caused them to die a much slower death or to endure dreadful suffering for years. Unlike the Armenian case, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a military target -not a civilian one- and the American civilian population was relatively tranquil. Compare this to the Turks who were surrounded by attacking forces on all sides in 1914, the year before the relocation - and vastly outnumbered. Their men -even local policemen- were summoned to abandon their homes in the time of dire peril when not one or two but many nations were attacking them. It is against this backdrop that the Armenian Revolutionary activities must be viewed. Call it what you want but it wasn’t “genocide” -no doubt about it.

Regarding the issue of false quotes. No one is saying that no one on the Turkish side ever raised an unreliable quote. In a case like this where millions of people are involved, there are bound to be a few over-enthusiastic individuals who fail to pay the proper attention to detail or even misrepresent some facts. But the Turkish side has been historically quick to distance itself from such sources when they come to light. On the Armenian side, however, there is a long history of lies and falsification and the leaders of the movement have repeatedly shown a determination to use these lies for, essentially, as long as they can “get away with it”. The example given by the author of the “Andonian Telegrams” is an excellent example but there are many more.

April 7, 2008
armenians commited uqly crimes in north western iran, after escaping from war in Turkey, they were trying to build the great Armenia in a North west Iran, Azerbaijan and cities like salmas, Urmiye. but their leader " marshimoun " got killed by kurds rebel leader " Ismael Aqa simitko " in a tent that they were discussing the future plans

April 7, 2008
Dear John, you write "The genocide is 1915, not 1918. The French legion of Armenians was mostly made up of volunteers from America, France, etc. and was as a direct response to 1915. " In the 1914 to May 1915, before even one single Armenian was relocated, it is documented - with names, and names of villages in the Ottoman archives - that 100,000 Turks had been killed by Armenians!! Note, this is before the government ever issued an order for their relocation, for even one single Armenian was touched in anyway! Read up on the Armenion revolt in Van, in May 1915, and you will see that the Armenians openly sided with and militarily aided the Russians to occupy and conquer the city. In this uprising itself, archives show that over 50,000 Turks were slaughtered. You can also read Turkish witness accounts and memoirs, which tell of how Armenians slaughtered women, children, raped and maimed them, even collecting their nipples as a prize. Its horrific reading, I won’t repeat it here, but the point is that the order for Armenian relocations itself occurred AFTER HUGE LOSS OF TURKISH LIFE in coordinating with enemy forces. It was a desperate measure to prevent complete loss of territory to Russia and further slaughter of Turks. In the years 1916-1920, an additional 400,000 Turks would be killed by Armenians. Finally, I would like to mention the case of Krikor Zohrab, who after been taken from Istanbul to Diyarbakir, as part of the relocations, was attacked and killed by armed bandits. The Ottoman response? Cemal Pasha found, tried, and HANGED (executed) those responsible for the murder. The year? 1915. My point is that if the goal had truly been genocide, as Armenians assert, the government would not go to such pains to punish those responsible for killing Armenians. In fact, many Armenians died from disease and hunger…epidemics that also plagued the Turkish population. Those years harbour a lot of tragedies, but the only tragedy is not that of the Armenians, Turks suffered just as much. And it is not fair for only Armenians to be remembered, whitewashing Armenian atrocities in the process. Talk to any Armenian, and they will deny everything. Yet the massgraves found in the Turkish villages of the Northeast Anatolia are physical proof of the evil deeds committed by Armenians. Why does the west insist on only remembering the Christian Armenians? Are not Turkish lives equally valuable? I have a friend from Kars whose entire family was wiped out, except for one child. A 10-year old boy, who managed to survive the war and become his grandfather. Surely, this family also deserves to be remembered?

April 7, 2008
Correction: I am sorry, I got the names mixed up, my previous post was to the first write, PAUL, not John. Again, deepest apologies.

April 7, 2008
Hear hear Emre. Bottom line, we as Turks wont recognize Armenian genocide, as we believe there is atrocities being waged by both sides at difficult times. We wont give you a dime or a portion of Mt. Ararat, so say good-bye to those dreams. At the same time, we should not be angered and so much defensive when Armenians declare victory when they get their constituency won the battle in foreign nations for recognizing so-called genocide claims. It should not be easy for us to be angered by this as many nations including most of South America, many central and eastern European countries and Canada already acknowledged it. It is only a maater of time for US to acknowledge it. What are we gonna do about it? We lost that kind of battle, so I suggest my fellow men not to get too weary about this dont give them the happiness for what they think they achieved. They achieved nothing. Dont put people on trial for insulting Turkishness since the moment you do that you make yourself much more vulnerable than we already are. Dont pay attention, critisize them but when we do what we did in the past we had seen that it only strengthed other party’s hand. Dont try Elif Shafak or Orhan Pamuk, just ignore them as they surely are not worthed in my opinion even to talk about.

April 7, 2008
Hilmar Kaiser is a noted scholar who has done considerable research in the archives and says nothing of alleged hundreds of thousands of Turks killed. In fact telegrams which came in from throughout the country reported the Armenian communities as peaceful. There is absolutely zero evidence to suggest the entire population was in an uproar massacring hundrds of thousands before the government even bothered to respond.

Armenians knew they were sunk when Russia and Ottoman went to war. They were one people caught between two nations (meaning there were many Armenians who were Russian citizens as well, and it is many of these whom you refer to when you say Armenians were helping the Russians). I suggest you look into Dr. Kaiser’s work on Van because it is very illuminating. Based on all archival research he has come to the conclusion that Van was a defense, not a revolt. If it was a revolt, why did Armenian Dashnak figure after figure (examples being Vramian and Vahan Papazian) willingly go meet with the governor of Van to negotiate in the days leading up to the Van events? If they were just a bunch of rebels who were merely waiting to destroy the town, why negotiate? And of course they knew what would happen, because every time one of these figures went to negotiate they were never heard from again and killed. They knew what they were going to, they sacrificed themselves for some time. You’ve probably never heard of these figures though because you are just parroting what you heard from your very selective Turkish-leaning scholars. As Hilmar has pointed out, Justin McCarthy frequently cites a telegram calling Armenians as potentially dangerous, but leaves out the part where it says the population is completely peaceful. Basically the government saw Armenians as a potential threat (with being a second class citizen on two sides of the border it was inevitable and frankly impossible not to be POTENTIALLY dangerous), but one which was clearly not murdering hundreds of thousands of Turks without the government lifting a finger as is being portrayed. That explanation is nothing short of a complete perversion of history.

Michael van der Galien
April 7, 2008
That explanation is nothing short of a complete perversion of history.

Yaya, Paul, we know. Go on, and on. Armenians killed hundreds of thousands of Turks (even before the relocations) but that was OK, since they were so-called Christians. Armenian deaths count, Muslim Turkish deaths don’t. We know the drill.

April 7, 2008
Escalation in Van was the work of Jevdet. Massacre and terror in the countryside occured before Armenians holed up within the city walls to protect whoever was left.

It’s all their Michael. All you have to do is read it.

April 7, 2008
“Yaya, Paul, we know. Go on, and on.”

Does that mean your invitation for folks to participate doesn’t apply to me?

“Armenians killed hundreds of thousands of Turks (even before the relocations) but that was OK, since they were so-called Christians. Armenian deaths count, Muslim Turkish deaths don’t. We know the drill.”

Muslim Turkish deaths don’t count if they don’t exist. And as I said not even Halacioglu the Turkish government’s official historian’s list has tens of thousands of deaths before Van. His list starts then and he’s the official historian. Where do you get off claiming hundreds of thousands of Turks were killed without even Turkey noticing- all the while complaining that Armenians inflate their own deaths!

April 7, 2008
Paul, The invitation for dialogue on this blog is only a nominal one, at least on this issue.

April 7, 2008
JP (#10), pal, I have to second you once again. Well said.

And, Kemal deserves congratulations and appreciation for a very well written post. Burried in the detailistic parts of Armenian claims are Ottoman administrators’ genocidal intent attributed in part to Balkan losses. The terrible Ottoman-Muslim experiences and losses in the Balkans cannot be seen in any light other than as put by Kemal. Today nobody seems willing to consider, let alone answer, the question of what would have happened to the majority Muslim population of eastern Anatolia should there not have been a relocation (or should Armenian separatists/nationalists have won in the end).

April 7, 2008
What would have happened Nihat? Genocide? Is that what you’re not so subtly implying? Talk about using the tactic of blaming the victim taken to its absolute illogical end in the form of a ridiculous "what if?" proposition.

This what if proposition of yours holds no water. Armenians and the entire indigenous Christian population were wiped off the map of modern day Turkey. That’s not a what if, it’s reality.

Skeptik Sinikian
April 8, 2008
"The Armenians lost the war" presupposes that the Armenians had the ability to wage war. Individuals fighting for freedom or as insurgents does not a war make. That’s just bad logic and sounds like the same propaganda perpetrated by the Turkish authorities today. The reality is that Armenians were loyal citizens of the Ottoman Empire in spite of the centuries of discrimination and oppression by the Turkish authorities. Turkish scholars and apologists will counter this by saying that Armenians and Greeks and Jews all held important positions and posts in the Ottoman Empire at the time, but that’s like saying that just because Jackie Robinson played baseball in 1950s America, that there was no racism in the U.S. Ridiculous argument based on isolated examples. For the most part, Armenians (and particularly in the rural areas) were treated as less than second class citizens. This is reinforced by Turkish documentation as well.

The categorizing of Armenians as second class citizens fits with the pattern of genocidal persecution. Also, the fact that Armenian Christian women were often taken as slaves from families is also evidence and this is becoming a more widely discussed topic in Turkey as more Turks are learning of their crypto-Armenian heritage.

There were Armenians that fought against the Turkish army. There were Armenians (like my grandfather) who fought in the Turkish Army (until they were placed in work battalions and shot). There were Armenians who wanted independence (Oh, God forbid any race or group in the world demand their right to self determination) and there were Armenians who were very content (Stockholm Syndrome) living under the yolk of Islamist fundamentalists and Turkish nationalism (not always the same but both equally pathetic and destructive).

The real question that begs to be answered here is the following - If Armenians had lived peacefully on the Armenian Plateau (Anatolia) for over 3 thousand years, what occurred that caused 0ver 90 percent of them to be vacated from those lands? A flu epidemic that affected only Armenians? Rising home prices and the famous Ottoman Turkish sub-prime loan crisis of 1915? Maybe it was the desire for Armenian villagers to leave their ancestral homelands for the fashions and cuisines of France of the bustling streets of New York…

Genocide is any attempt to eradicate in part or in whole a group of people for a variety of reasons as outlined by the U.N. and as deemed by common sense and human dignity. The truth is and facts back this up…that innocent Armenians were targeted and killed by the Ottoman Authorities and those who answered to them.

Everything else is propaganda or ignorance…

April 8, 2008
You hold a lot of water though, Arin. Sorry, I wasn’t talking to you. So, this snide remark should suffice.

April 8, 2008
This article is false , it is well known in the academic circle that Michael van der Galien , is paid by the Turkish nationalists and it’s groups to falsify and deny the Armenian Genocide .

The Fact lies with the evidence that is available within books and eyewitness accounts , from humanitarians and politicians from all over the world .

This is another denial tactic from Turkish nationalist groups to undermine the ferocity of the Armenian Genocide by the Hands of then the Ottoman Government .

With this said this is another Anit-Armenian newsletter and i would highly suggest that All Armenians try to Ban this Gentlemen from ever attending forums and or lectures .


April 8, 2008
How clever of you. Teehee.

April 8, 2008
Here is another view by a young Turkish person which is more even-handed: http://feistyturkishgirl.wordpress.com/2008/02/06/the-armenian-genocide-the-truth/

April 8, 2008
"What would have happened Nihat? Genocide? Is that what you’re not so subtly implying? Talk about using the tactic of blaming the victim taken to its absolute illogical end in the form of a ridiculous "what if?" proposition. "

Silly Arin, no one needs to ask "what if". Just look at what the Armenians did to the Azeris in Karabagh–ethnic cleansing. That’s what Armenian revolutionaries had planned for Ottoman Muslims and Jews in southeastern Anatolia.

Otherwise, why do Armenians so carefully conceal the Dashnak archives from the world? Aww, come one, tell us what you’re hiding….

Karabagh shows us that Armenian revolutionary tactics and goals have not changed during the past 100 years. Let’s also not forget that there are also 2 U.N. Resolutions against Armenians on this one.

April 8, 2008
"Muslim Turkish deaths don’t count if they don’t exist."

Get it straight, they were Ottoman Muslims (not just Turks, but Kurds, Cerkez, Zeybeque, Laz, Georgians, Bosnaks, etc) and Ottoman Jews who were massacred.

Talk about denial.

Arguing that not a single Ottoman Muslim was killed by Armenian revolutionaries renders null and void any credibility you could possibly have because there is countless documentary and photographic evidence Ottomans slaughtered by Armenians in eastern Turkey both during and after WWI.

April 8, 2008
Silly Hally,
God forbid people ask for and ultimately fight for their independence when facing escalation, threats, and pogroms unjustly aimed against them in both Sumgait (’88) and Baku (’90).

April 8, 2008
These are half truths mixed up with lies in a shameful attempt to answer a big question.

Nothing more should be expected from a blog as it serves a corner for personal expression this has nothing to do with real history or the current situation. Thanks

April 8, 2008
Agreed. But this blog of half truths and lies shows up through Google News searches. That’s the shameful part of it.

April 8, 2008
Oh Arin, your evasive tactics are telling. You do not address the answer to the question you yourself raise:

"What would have happened Nihat? Genocide? Is that what you’re not so subtly implying?"

Just look at what the Armenians did to the Azeris in Karabagh–ethnic cleansing. That’s what Armenian revolutionaries had planned for Ottoman Muslims and Jews in southeastern Anatolia.

Otherwise, why do Armenians so carefully conceal the Dashnak archives from the world? Aww, come one, tell us what you’re hiding….

"God forbid people ask for and ultimately fight for their independence when facing escalation, threats, and pogroms unjustly aimed against them"

So when Ottoman Muslims fight for their independence in the face of the threat of being ethnically cleansed by Russians aided by Armenians as their compatriots were in the Balkans it is called "genocide". How silly of me to think that Ottoman Muslims were allowed to defend themselves.

Hypocrisy hypocrisy hypocrisy…

Leo Aryatsi
April 8, 2008
The zionist spit that holds turkey together is drying up. Soon you will fall apart satana turk.

April 8, 2008

Swedish archives have documents that Swedish officers and underofficers were employed in 1915 relocation of Armenians and their reports clearly prove there was no genocide whatsoever. Even, Ottomans paid daily moneys to each and every Armenian and half the amount to their children. During the difficult and weary process of relocating Armenians to Syria, Lebanon and even Yemen, many died -both from the Armenians and from the Ottoman army, report Swedish oficers and underofficers. Many Armenians relocated to France and USA. If all the Armenians died, how come so many Armenians are to be found in USA, France, Yemen, Lebanon and Syria and even in Turkey? Armenian ASALA killed close to 80 Turkish Republic diplomats for an incident which did not even happen in Ottoman times which has nothing to do with Turkish Republic. Russian, Ottoman, Swedish, German, British and USA archives all confirm there was no genocide. Armenians do not open their archives. Why are they afraid if they are not lieing?

April 8, 2008
"But this blog of half truths and lies shows up through Google News searches. That’s the shameful part of it."

Lies and half truths:

1. the notorious Andonian documents
2. the Hitler quote
3. the quote attributed to Ataturk
4. presenting the painting entitled "The Apotheosis of War" painted more than 40 years before WWI as depicting the "genocide" of WWI
5. the photoshopped picture of Ataturk prepared by Armenian professors at UCLA in which they removed the puppies playing at his feet were removed and substituted a child with its entrails showing
6. concealing the Dashnak and Hunchak archives to hide their complicity with the invading Russian forces

Shameful shameful lies …

April 8, 2008
"The zionist spit that holds turkey together"

and add

7. shameless anti-semitism

April 8, 2008

Answer to Leo Aryatsi
As history tells, Turks existed since the time of the Huns (the first Turks) until today. That is over 2000 years. They didn’t fall apart!!! Recent anthropological evidence proves (based on DNA) 75 % of all people in the world are of Turkish origin. If you Finns didn\t leave the Finn /Uygur group and went up to north, you would be living in Turkey now, instead of visiting it once a year, for a week, as tourists!

I have been in Turkey and Turks are very friendly people and everyone in Turkey incl. Armenians and Kurds are quite happy in despite of the shortcomings of the present Turkish government and Turkey has no intention or possibility to fall apart. It is a very lively and growing economy.

April 8, 2008
Azerbaijan: mutual ethnic cleansing.
Armenia: Genocide.

Don’t conflate.

Leo Aryatsi
April 8, 2008
The only reason they have lasted so far is because of their indiscriminant murdering tactics (the whole world has experienced their destruction). Now they are “civilized” so let’s see how long they last. Those who have persisted in civilizations have had culture, music and beauty to offer to the world. So lets see how long they last.

Leo Aryatsi
April 8, 2008
Anyway this blog is trash as are its supporters.

April 8, 2008
Anyway this blog is trash as are its supporters.

Thank you for your support.

April 8, 2008
the turks are barbarians.that is the truth.when nowdeys you enter in conflict with theys ,they can massacre you with cold blood.

Leo Aryatsi
April 8, 2008
Then an eye for an eye Gary. No longer will we be passive. Johan you moron turks are raceless as are another nomadic parasite group out of Egypt. They are mongrils. And what archaeological evidence do you speak of you joke? Your words are trash.

April 8, 2008
Are you showing the hatred of Armenians? Well done, I know it and you show it the ones who don’t. Go on showing your real face…

41 Jenna
April 8, 2008
In response to E.B’s comment to ‘ showing your real face’…I’ll tell you what the true face of some Armenian lobbyists are. The former leader of ANCA, who was arrested for storing thousands of explosives in an Ohio warehouse on the intent of using it on Turks, and who had already bombed the UN Plaza in Ny in 1981, as well as planning out assassination attempts on Turkish Consulate members, is out of prison and back into ANCA as their chairman. He is an Armenian terrorist that had led the JCAG on terrorist attacks abroad and in the United States,on his fight for’Armenian cause’. He was recently awarded with high honors for his fight for justice from ANCA leaders. The same ANCA that has endorsed Presidential Candidate Barack Obama for President of the United States. This is the true face of these hateful groups.

42 Paul
April 8, 2008
Yes Jenna, and by extension this means the true face of all Armenians (and Obama) is that they are all terrorists. Funny thing is I bet this blog doesn’t have a problem seeing your comment as accurate while any generalization by an Armenian about Turks is seen as par for the course and totally unacceptable. The partisan hackery here is at unimaginable proportions. And I still bet his invitation for reader participation won’t be extended to me as I hold a differing opinion than that of his preferred reader- even though I wrote a cogent and intelligent article without a shred of hate.

And Topalian is not "back as chairman" of the ANC.

43 Kenan
April 8, 2008
The partisan hackery here is at unimaginable proportions.

Yes, especially your own.

The genocide is 1915, not 1918.

Surprise. H.R. 106, which Armenians promoted among the unknowing U.S. Congress proclaims the "genocide" occurred through 1923.

So does that Armenians don’t know when "their genocide" occurred, or that you do not?

The French legion of Armenians was mostly made up of volunteers from America, France, etc. and was as a direct response to 1915.

A few hundred? Like 200? Are you sure? Or is this just more Armenian "perversion of history"?

According to Wikipedia, there were 6 batallions of 800, that totals 4,800. According to Boghos Nubar, representative of the Armenians after WWI, there were 5,000.

How does 4,800-5,000= a few hundred?

Explain this novel concept to us.

A check of the archives will show the reports just before the genocide had Armenians as exemplary citizens at peace.

You should read some of your own compatriots publications, which revel in the glory of all the terror and havoc wrought by Armenian revolutionaries in the Ottoman Empire. There’s more than a few of them referenced at the end of the article, perhaps you should try reading one or two.

Instead of every single person seeing themself as a genocide-genius who knows all about everything despite an ounce of research outside the Turkish government propaganda

Are you seriously suggesting that Nalbandian, Dasnabedian, Pasdermadjian and Tashjian are Turkish propagandists? In light of your less than accurate statements, perhaps you should apply this statement to yourself.

Muslim Turkish deaths don’t count if they don’t exist. … Where do you get off claiming hundreds of thousands of Turks were killed without even Turkey noticing-

This is an extremely callous and ridiculous statement that does not comport with reality.

There are photos of Ottoman citizens massacred by Armenian militants; some have even been used to promote Armenian genocide claims, because some times Armenians get confused.

There are also eye-witness reports of survivors and Russian military officers, but you are either ignorant, so indoctrinated or brainwashed that you are completely oblivious, or a liar.

I still bet his invitation for reader participation won’t be extended to me as I hold a differing opinion

It’s probably not extended to anyone who writes pure fiction and tries to pawn it off as truth.

44 gökalp
April 8, 2008
Please be honest. Jenna says "the true face of some Armenian lobbyists".

Besides, can you show me a hundred Armenians who can openly condemn Asala Terrorism without using "but….". Can you show me a single article by an Armenian condemning Asala? Isn’t it true that many of you (if not all) are still paying homage to Asala terrorist as national heroes? Don’t you sing "nationalist" songs after these Terrorists. Remember the song “Lisbon 5” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGIjChcFEfk )? Where are some Asala terorist burried? In your national cemetery for heroes in Yerablur. You have a monument for them in that cemetary, Right? You are the only nation which erected a monument for an assassin (California. Sogomon Teglerian monument.). You are the only nation which has build a mausoleum and gives medals in the name of a Nazi general (Drastamat "Dro" Kanayan. the founder of the Armenian legion in Nazi Germany. People in stormfront web site really like it. do you?). Is this the high Armenian culture that you endlessly brag about? Is this the type of role model that you find suitable for your children? Do you really think you deserve that? Aren’t you ashamed of yourself when you see the endless insults and racist rhetoric (see above) of your people? The blind worshiping to racist Dashnak mentality ruined your people in the past and it is still ruining you today. I wonder if you will ever wake up. Why do you fail to understand that we had our own grandmothers and grandfathers which raised us with their childhood memories of butcheries and mass murders by Armenians? Why do you fail to understand that a person who was raised in a village which, has a well full of bodies of Turkish women and children killed by Armenians, will stand against your "genocide" stories, not because he is a racist or brainwashed by the government but because that is a truth that comes directly from his life story. Is there no limit to your willful blindness?
You’re like a sheep, my brother:
when the cloaked drover raises his stick,
you quickly join the flock
and run, almost proudly, to the slaughterhouse.
I mean you’re strangest creature on earth–
even stranger than the fish
that couldn’t see the ocean for the water.
And the oppression in this world
is thanks to you.
And if we’re hungry, tired, covered with blood,
and still being crushed like grapes for our wine,
the fault is yours–
I can hardly bring myself to say it,
but most of the fault, my dear brother, is yours.
( http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/the-strangest-creature-on-earth/ )

45 edvin
April 8, 2008
Ismayil aqa simitgo, drunken in his looting and killing the armenian leader " marshimoun, of course was difficult to finde, so the Armenians took it out on azeris living in Iran and murdered almost 200,000 local azeris

46 Paul
April 8, 2008
Since my words are being misinterpreted and portrayed as hateful, I am going to clarify. I never said that there were no Turkish deaths in 1915. Obviously that’s a ridiculous statement. As I pointed out, the allegation is being made here that hundreds of thousands of Turks were murdered in the years leading up to 1915 by Armenians and not a thing was done until 1915 to punish the Armenians for it. What was done to the entire population was either a necessity or punishment since none could be trusted is how this is all being portrayed.

As I mentioned, the only one who has ever produced numbers on how many Turks were killed by Armenians is Halacioglu, and if you check his list it barely records anything occurring before April 1915. As I said, if not even the Turkish government’s official historian has managed to find these hundreds of thousands of alleged deaths in the archives, what makes you think they exist? This is what I was responding to, allegations regarding massacres of Turks before 1915 being made without citing a source. Here if a Turkish proponent wants to make a claim against Armenians, it’s true. Anything pro-genocide is shot down as false. How am I being a partisan hack? If anything I’m doing nothing less than you Kenan. You’ve yet to offer a single source for your claims, and no if you come back with "tallarmeniantale.com" as a non-partisan source that hardly counts.

And I hardly see what 500 or 5000 Armenian legionnaires in 1918 has to do with anything. The damage of 1915 was long done, are you trying to justify it by saying three years in the future a bunch of diasporan Armenians would show up with the French in Cilicia?

And gokalp if we’re going to end our posts with Hikmet (former enemy of the Turkish state turned recent national hero) then how about this one, the close to his poem "Evening Walk":

The grocer Karabet’s lights are on. This Armenian citizen has not forgiven The slaughter of his father in the Kurdish mountains. But he loves you, Because you also won’t forgive Those who blackened the name of the Turkish people.
Or was Hikmet just a willfully blind fabricator as well?

47 P. Connolly
April 8, 2008
Paul could you please point out to us where someone on the Turkish side is alleging 100,000 Turks killed by Armenians before 1915 ? I’ve tried to find it either in the article or in the 45 posts following it and I can’t find it anywhere; perhaps I’m missing something.

48 Paul
April 8, 2008
Emre- post 8"In the 1914 to May 1915, before even one single Armenian was relocated, it is documented - with names, and names of villages in the Ottoman archives - that 100,000 Turks had been killed by Armenians!!"

Except Emre never decides to give us the source for that because sources don’t matter here if you say what the blogmasters want to here. I am assuming he means the one and only work to ever make such a claim, that of Yusuf Halacioglu the Turkish government’s official history- though if you look closely I don’t even think he is so bold to claim that number so soon. Either way, consider the source, which is much easier to do when they aren’t named. In a similar vein there are other similar unsourced claims of Armenian massacres of Turks before 1915 forced the Ottomans to "relocate" the entire population. Even your fearless leader gets into the act:

"Armenians killed hundreds of thousands of Turks (even before the relocations) but that was OK, since they were so-called Christians."Generally insulting an entire nationality’s religion, made popular by his likely hero Sam Weems who for some unknown reason is given a badge of credibility here. I warn Michael and others to get back from the edge of racism with these completely stereotypical comments. A good test for if you’ve gone too far is if you can substitute Armenian for "Jew" or "black" and say the sentence about their entire race in polite company without being attacked. I’ll let Michael decide whether or not he would have passed this litmus test with his essentially Armenians are satanists comment. In conclusion, I guess you just need to read the comments a little closer P. Connelly.

49 P. Connolly
April 8, 2008
I will grant Paul that 100,000 Turks killed by Armenians in say, the decade or two leading up to 1915, sounds a little high but in my mind that’s not the point. When Americans relocated the Japanese in the mid 40’s there was not a single American killed by these Japanese Americans, and decades went by before Americans finally acknowledged that there was no real justification whatsoever for relocating them. All that matters is whether the Armenians did in fact organize revolutionary movements, whether they did in fact engage in collusion with Russia -that hereditary enemy of the Ottoman Empire- in the hour of dire peril, and whether they did in fact attack, torture and kill large numbers of innocent Turkish civilians. Armenian Propagandists love to argue that Armenians had a right to revolt. What they don’t seem to understand is that once there is an organized revolt, revolution, and collusion with the enemy in wartime there might be a reaction from the government, the scheme might fail, and if it does you can’t claim "genocide".

Now regarding his comment "In conclusion, I guess you just need to read the comments a little closer P. Connelly." …it is not necessary for him to attack or denigrate his opponent; it is only necessary for him to state his proofs and arguments and let the reader decide.

50 Paul
April 8, 2008
"I will grant Paul that 100,000 Turks killed by Armenians in say, the decade or two leading up to 1915, sounds a little high"

Thank you though in fact what Emre and most Turkish propaganda says is that number not in a couple of decades but in the year preceding the deportations!!! If you check his list Halacioglu actually has single days when he alleges 50,000 Turks were killed in a single area by Armenians! 50,000 in a single day?! According to the Turkish government’s official scholar this rag-tag group of Armenian rebels were able to kill more people than an atomic bomb!

I’d also like to see evidence of a full-fledged revolt. You can’t just to point to Van and say "ARMENIAN REVOLT" as something which had been happening for years before. It seems to Van is used as one example of the Armenian Revolt in progress, except that no other event before it is ever mentioned. Meanwhile scholars like Hilmar Kaiser (who has actually done a considerable amount with the Turks and even argued against the Armenians in their life insurance case against Deutsche Bank) who has done a considerable amount of research in the Turkish archives has come to the conclusion that based on that information it was clearly a defense and not a revolt. I mentioned some of the reasons why in previous comments. To simply slap a label on Van like "part of a long-running revolt" is taking the easy way out, forgetting that to call Van a revolt is just one side of the story and according to historians like Kaiser a very inaccurate one. Why would the Armenian leaders of the ARF in Van have given themselves up to the governor in the days prior to the beginning of the "revolt" in order to negotiate, only to each never return one at a time (as they knew would happen) if they were planning a revolt. Why not just dig in and prepare for battle instead of giving yourself up to your enemy where (as predicted) you or any of your fellow leaders had a habit of returning from alive.

"it is only necessary for him to state his proof…"
Which is as I have pointed out is not done here by any of the commenters. If I were to stray to the realm of the ridiculous with my claims I’d have to back them up. I think when people like Emre and Michael make similarly far-out claims they should have to properly source it without it being accepted by gospel as it so often is. For not believing numbers like 100,000 Turks killed in a single year I am called a partisan hack when these commenters can’t see their own hackery. I assure you I am not trying to be a hack, but that’s what I’m called for refuting totally unsourced (and frankly untrue) claims by all these self-appointed Internet historians.

51 gökalp
April 9, 2008
Here are your documents showing a massive rebelion. Write down the names and mark them on the map. It is 2/3 of Anatolia covering the whole war zone. Also the same book contains dozens of similar reports-

it is a huge book so it will take time to upload.
Page 109 -

Defense of Van ha.. The heroic Armenian people of Van managed to stop a regular army and hold it till Russian advance with pitchforks and hunting rifles. Anybody buying that? This is really getting boring if basic logic is not used at least sometimes.

By the way it seems you are also loosing Hilmar… he is spending half of his lectures talking about how corrupt Dadrian and Taner Akcam is. Anyone who spends some time in the ottoman archive either shuts up or slowly changes.

Read the last part. Mail from papazian. take close look at his tone. is this guy a historian or a cabal member?
"Now Hilmar is back on the road on a speaking tour, offered free to Armenian student organizations, wherein he is now doing the same badmouthing and putting the Armenian genocide, as a genocide, in question. He will speak at Villanova University on Monday, March 31"

Oh man papazian must be really pissed off.

52 R
April 9, 2008
Actually, Hilmar Kaiser is firm about the Armenian Genocide. At the same time he is critical of other historians including pro-Turkish ones. At a recent lecture I attended in which he laid out his research concerning the defense of Van and the role of the Special Organization in the deportations he was particularly scathing about Justin McCarthy and he dismissed Gunther Lewy completely.

Those interested in his work should pick up ‘At the Crossroads of Der Zor’ which details concentration camps maintained by the Ottomans during the deportations, in which women and children were raped with impunity.

53 Arin
April 9, 2008
Hilmar Kaiser is firm about the Genocide, I don’t know what Gokalp is talking about. I’ve seen him speak twice. He believes the motive for the Genocide was land acquisition.

April 9, 2008
I have read most of their work. To be honest I don’t think McCarthy and Guenter Lewy are top class historians. But the practices by Dadrian and Taner Akcam (who is actually nobody in terms of historical academic background) are way out of the line. They are so recklessly doing unethical practices (mistranslations and selective quoting, conspiracy theory like assumptions from a mere quotation) that no one wants to be in the same picture with them anymore. Not even Ara Sarafian… Dadrian even tried to sell iki komite iki kital (two committees two massacres) as genocide proof. i.e Dadrian takes a single line which sounds nice to him from the source and puts it in his book. Just a line above his quotations the source says “Armenians were killing Turkish civilians in thousands”. That old guy never knows when to stop. He is more of a threat to the Armenian cause than McCarthy.

The problem with Hilmar is, he is still calling the events "Genocide" but what he describes nowadays does not match with the definition of genocide in the international law. That’s why Papasian is going mad.

Artin made a perfect point now!! I just saw your post sorry. yes thats what I am talking about! "He believes the motive for the Genocide was land acquisition." (I am not sure if Hilmar really said that but what ever) and that puts the events out of the "genocide" context. because the motive should be racial hatered not some political agenda.

When Cem özgönül (Der Mythos eines Völkermordes) exposed the forgeries and the omitted pro-Turk documents in Lepsius’ book he was in the audience and all he did was to nod. The guy is wise enough to re-thing (or just remain quiet) when he sees real scholarship and documents. Hilmar also seems to like Halacoglu a lot. In his recent interview he says Halacoglu is clever and polite. Also he says Halacoglu showed him genuine documents about the trials that the Otoman government did in 1916 and says the documents are serious. If he acknowledges the document he may slowly abandon the "genocide” term. I won’t be surprised to see that. Lets wait and see…

The reality is the Armenian cause was lost in terms of real history on the day Ottoman Archives opened. But Armenians are needed for the psychological war against the unitary form of the Turkish republic. When these operations in the region are over we will see if they need the Armenians any more or not. Then they may abandon the Armenians once again. Just like they did in the past… Agitate, use and leave that’s the imperialist way.

Unfortunately Armenian still cannot see it.

If one day Turkey and Armenia need each other we will be fine but what are you going to do with all those racist youth you raised… I don’t know.

Quote of the day: (from German Archives) Lepsius says in his telegram: “the Armenian rebellion in East and south east has been so successful that now the Armenian population in the region is higher that the Turks… in the Turkish villages there are either really few or no Turks left. I don’t understand why we are still waiting for the foundation of the “great Armenian republic”. Our state should convince England. (My translation so it may not be 100% accurate)

April 9, 2008
"and that puts the events out of the "genocide" context. because the motive should be racial hatred not some political agenda. "

No, the motive does not have to be racial hatred to qualify as genocide. The motive is elimination, and hence, genocide.

P. Connolly
April 9, 2008
Thanks to "Google Books" it is now possible to see quickly and clearly the level of lying that is coming from the Armenian side of this debate.


Anyone who would like to hear evidence directly from a Contemporary Armenian should have a look at the above book. In it Dr. G. Pasdermadjian argues the case for an Independent Armenia based on the level of Armenian Collusion with the Enemy in wartime. The author was both an active member of the Armenian Revolutionary "Federation" ("Dashnaktzoutiun") and later, after the 1908 Turkish Revolution, became Armenian Representative in the new Parliament. The activities of this individual in the two or three years leading up to the Relocation of 1915 are most interesting; this former member of parliament actually became an organizer of the Armenian Volunteer movement "to prepare the local inhabitants of Turkish Armenia [ie: Eastern Anatolia] for self-defense, as the Russian army was about to advance into the captured territories of that country." This is explained in the Translators preface on p.9. Note that the term "Turkish Armenia" is indicative of a separatist movement. Bear in mind that the Armenians were a small minority in these regions here labeled as "Turkish Armenia" - vastly outnumbered by Turks, Kurds and other ethnic groups.

The book documents the revolutionary activities of the Armenians and then, on page 42 of that book the author makes this remarkable statement:

"If we wish to condense all we have said in a few pages, we shall have the following picture:

In 1914 both Turkey and Russia appealed to the Armenians by various promises of a future autonomous Armenia to secure their assistance in their respective military operations. Through their long and bitter experience the Armenians knew very well that the imperialistic governments of both Turkey and Russia were opposed to their national aspirations and therefore those promises had no value whatsoever. But realizing the significance of the present war, and considering the fact that Justice was on the side of the Entente, the Armenians, in spite of their distrust of the Russian government, from the very beginning, unreservedly bound themselves to the allied cause." Later on page 44 he says of this decision to side with the Allies (ie: against their own government): "We consciously chose this last alternative, namely: we tied our fate to the allied victory; we exposed our very existence to danger in order to realize complete fulfillment of our national ambition, that is, to see the re-establishment of the United Historic Independent Armenia".

Here we sit almost a century later and World War 1 has never ended for the descendants of these people. They come to our shores stirring political intrigue in our government institutions insisting that anyone who refuses to help them in their campaign to take back the land conquered 1000 years ago is a "genocide denier", or a "Daniel Irving" !

Article Location & To Comment: PoliGazette