Updated: Letter To Australian MP Rowland By Sukru Aya 27.11.13
Video of Michelle Rowland's address in Parliament during Justin McCarthy's visit:
Monday, 25 November 2013
Yet Another dishonest dishonourable Australian Politician this time Ms Michelle Rowland MP
Michelle Rowland MP
Electorate Office: 230 Prospect Hwy
Seven Hills, NSW 2147
Postal Address: PO Box 686, Seven Hills, NSW 1730
Tel: (02) 9671 4780
Tel: (02) 9671 5147
Open letter to Ms Michelle Rowland MP
Dear Ms Rowland,
I write to you as a concerned Australian citizen, I recently viewed your speech in relation to the fallacious Armenian Genocide claims. I have several questions for you as a concerned citizen.
1. What exactly do you know about the alleged "Armenian Genocide" claims?
2. Have you ever met Prof Justin McCarthy?
3. What do you know about Prof Justin McCarthy?
4. Have you read any of Prof McCarthy's many books or journal articles?
5. If so can you please advise me which ones and what they say in summary?
6. Have you ever checked any of the facts Prof McCarthy asserts?
7. Will you repeat your words about Prof McCarthy outside the Parliamentary Chamber?
You see Ms Rowland, from your speech you imply Australia is a country where people have the freedom to express themselves and publish. Further you call Prof McCarthy "an Armenian Genocide denier" the imputation is clear, that either his research is flawed and he is incompetent or worse dishonest.
Then you proceed with your speech and state the following:-
".....this is an issue of great importance to many people whom I know and respect........as I said Australia is a country of free speech and that is a great thing and just as Professor McCarthy can say what he likes, I too can articulate my disagreement and displeasure with his views and I choose to do that today. I also note that as circulated by the Australian Institute for Holocaust and Genocide studies an open letter to the Federal Parliament quoting Australian Jurist Geoffrey Robertson QC published his opinion on this matter in 2009 based on British documents he examined Robertson concluded the events in question constituted Genocide.
Of McCarthy he stated I do not regard his analysis either as legally correct or as factually excluding a finding of Genocide. I can also understand the heighten frustration that many Australian Armenians feel on this matter because of the venue at which this event is scheduled to take place. And my views............. Hitler said before he marched across Europe No one remembers the Armenians, well as I said we should remember the Armenians, and the events between 1915 and 1923 that saw the systematic killing of Armenian, Hellenic and Assyrian people, do represent a scar on the face of humanity.
The Armenian Genocide remains one of the least known and misunderstood episodes of the 20th Century. And again I note some of the issues that have been raised by groups such as the Armenian National Committee and I quote Australian POWs recorded the marches, the massacres and the complete destruction of Armenian Churches, Villages and city quarters. ANZAC servicemen also rescued survivors across the Middle East. Today I acknowledge the tragic events of 1915 and affirm my commitment as I said to never forget what happened to the Armenian people who were effectively eliminated from the homeland they had occupied for nearly 3000 years and personally Madam Deputy Speaker can I say that the reason why I choose to take a great interest in this matter is indeed a very personal one.
Two of my closest friends [unknown spelling of friends names] who are of Australian Armenian descent brought this matter to my attention many years ago, and have contributed in many different ways to the Armenian Community in Sydney, and I do want a say a special call out to [friends names] who recently became parents for the first time and as I noted in my address to the commemoration in Chatswood earlier this year. I think it is very important for us to reflect on the fact that so many people who were pictured in the videos that we saw at that event they were probably the ancestors those victims were probably the ancestors of many people who were watching that and I found it very difficult to watch a lot of the footage that was provided on that occasion, and as for baby [unknown spelling of baby's name] who was born only a few weeks ago she was in her mother's womb at the time in the audience watching me, and she is now obviously a very happy little baby and against the odds for many of her people she has made a safe home in Australia. She will grow up to be a wonderful Australian woman I know with fantastic parents and a fantastic community around her. ............. that Australia's first major international humanitarian relief effort was in fact to help Armenian orphans from the genocide "
Now before I commence my paragraphs proper I would like to point out that I could well inundate you with information. However, I will not do that because I know you will not read even the shortest letter I send you nor are you interested in the full facts. I will address only what I believe to be the most important parts or more appropriately your biggest failures in that speech.
You see Ms Rowland NOT ONCE, throughout that entire speech you do NOT ONCE mention the Turkish or other Muslim deaths at the hands of Armenians, at the end of this letter I will reproduce for you hardcore evidence which IF you were mined to could well FACT CHECK. However, I doubt you will do that it would offend your closest friends would it not?
You rely on and quote Geoffrey Robertson QC's opinion from 2009. Well let's look at that opinion. As you implicitly stated everybody is entitled to their own opinion and Mr Robertson is surely entitled to his. However, let's not forget that it is just exactly that an opinion, not a Judgement from a competent and well instructed Tribunal of Fact and Law.
If you have looked at Mr Robertson's 44 page opinion you would have gleaned the following:-
"The Armenian Centre decided in 2008 to refer this matter for the expert opinion of Mr Geoffrey Robertson QC,.....Mr Robertson was instructed by solicitor Bernard Andonian to reach his own independent conclusions on all legal and factual issues, without being influenced by the concerns of the Centre. I am instructed by the Armenian Centre to consider the attitude of the British government in refusing to accept that the massacres of Armenians in 1915 - 16 amounted to genocide, and whether its reasons for taking this position are valid and sustainable in international law."
The title of his opinion and that paragraph above speaks volumes. It is nothing but an opinion, further he was instructed by "The Armenian Centre" and Solicitor Mr Bernard Andonian. The first question that comes to my mind is whether Mr Bernard Andonian is related to the infamous forgery titled "The Andonian papers" and the man who actually created those forged documents Mr Andonian?
Then as you may be aware in the adversarial system Barristers are Advocates for a particular party that engages their services. So it is evident that the "Armenian Centre" paid Mr Robertson (which I assume was a great deal of money) to put forward their best case. From there we move on to see whether the amount they paid was value for money. With all due respect to Mr Robertson, from reading his opinion I would suggest that the Armenian Centre has wasted their funds yet again.
The reasons why I believe that to be the case are as follows;
Not once does Mr Robertson mention that he requested information from the Turkish side of the argument. He superficially glosses over what three particular historians may have said and done and in fact goes on to what I believe is defaming Professor Heath Lowry without explaining the full circumstances of what transpired in those events nor does he give Professor Lowry a right of reply.
Now you being a member of Parliament in Australia which is a Liberal Democratic society should ought to know some fundamental facts about what that means. That is a fundamental rule in our system is the concept of the Rule of Law. That is everybody should be held equal in the eyes of the law but more importantly "Natural Justice" or proper "Due Process" is the entitlement of all persons living within a Liberal Democratic society. I ask you "Where was our Right to Reply when Mr Robertson was forming his opinion?"
Who did he from the Turkish side ask to present any evidence?
You see and therein lies the problem. People like you Mr Robertson and others will not or do not wish to hear what evidence the Turks may present. Are you aware that a whole book full of original source documents has been printed detailing in minute detail where Mr Robertson erred in his opinion? That book is called, "Twisted Law versus Documented History Geoffrey Robertson's opinion on Genocide against proven Facts" by Mr Sukru Aya in English and as I say with source documents. If you want to learn in detail where Mr Robertson has got it wrong please read that book. However, I'm sure that you like many others who take the high moral ground will not read that book and I even doubt you have read Mr Robertson's opinion. You see to people like you it's only Armenian "Christian" lives that are of value not Turkish and other Muslim lives. They for you are just dispensable pieces of garbage are they not?
Moving on Mr Robertson states in his opinion;
"The United Kingdom rounded up 67 Turkish officials suspected of ordering atrocities and held them
for trial in Malta, but for reasons of diplomatic expediency they were eventually released."
You see that stated FACT is WRONG, there were approximately 140 members of the Turkish Leadership arrested without charge and moved to Malta ala Guantanamo Bay style. I reiterate WITHOUT CHARGE, they were held there for approximately two and a half years whilst the British searched far and wide for evidence of crimes against Humanity and other War crimes of the Ottoman Leadership.
Mr Robertson gets this aspect very wrong and glosses over it. Further he then with the use of his eloquent command of the English Language implies that these men were guilty of war crimes but for "political expediency" they were released and returned. That is not the case at all.
If you were minded to fact check this incident you will find in the British Archives the following documents:-
See the following letters exchanged between the Attorney General of Malta and Mr WS Edmonds, as the last words:
The letters written by H.M. Procurator-General’s Department to Mr Lancelot Oliphant (directed by Earl Curzon of Kedleston) dated July 29th, 1921 read:
‘It seems improbable that the charges made against some of the accused will be capable of legal proof in a Court of Law.’
(F.O. 371/6502/E.5845: L.Olipant (F.O.) to Mr Woods (Procurator-General’s Department)
5845/132/44 of May 31st,1921)
‘Until more precise information is available as to the nature of the evidence which will be forthcoming at the trials, the Attorney General does not feel that he is in a position to express any opinion as to the prospect of success in any of the cases submitted for his consideration’
(F.O. 371/6504/E.8745: Woods (Procurator-General’s Department) to the Under Secretary of Stat efor FO., of July 29th, 1921)
Upon the receipt of Attorney General’s opinion Mr WS Edmonds minuted:
‘From this letter, it appears that the chances of obtaining convictions are almost nil…
‘The American Government, we have ascertained, cannot help with any evidence…
‘In addition to the ABSENCE OF LEGAL EVIDENCE there is the extreme unlikelihood that the French and Italians would agree to participate in constituting the court provided for in art.230 of the Treaty (of Sevres)….
‘ON THE OTHER HAND WE CERTAINLY CAN NOT RELEASE ANY TURKS UNTIL OUR OWN PRISONERS ARE RETURNED…. THE PROPER TIME FOR THE RELEASE OF THE TURKS SEEMS TO BE WHEN IT CAN BE DONE AS PART OF A GENERAL SETTLEMENT WITH TURKEY.’
‘IT IS REGRETTABLE THAT THE TURKS HAVE BEEN CONFINED AS LONG WITHOUT CHARGES BEING FORMULATED AGAINST THEM….’
(PRO-F.O. 371/6504/E.8745: Minutes by Edmonds of August 3rd,1921)
" The comments about Malta; The British sent these men to Malta in the hope of finding evidence against them of crimes against the British (and Christians). Most were city Governors, officers etc and some were accused of mistreating POWs. Several were Commandants of POW camps. Mazlum Bey was Commandant of Afion camp for about 9 months in 1916. He was replaced on the recommendation of Turkish Camp Inspector Ziya Bey, who made many improvements of camp conditions throughout Turkey. (Unfortunately he was also sent to Malta for a time). Evidence was not found whilst the men were locked away.
Mazlum Bey was accused of cruelty and other 'crimes'. One crime was the sodomy of two British naval men. However, the two men examined by British surgeons were found not to have had any signs of sodomy practiced upon them. Despite some prisoners accusing him of beatings, various reports from the International Red Cross and Red Crescent stated that they had been exaggerated. However, it seems that he was benefitting from inflated prices and theft of supplies. Thus he was removed by the Turkish War Office at the end of 1916.
Many of the memoirs published at the end of the war have exaggerated their hardships. Many of these memoirs do not reveal that at the main camp for the Berlin-Baghdad railway at Belemedik, the men were able to drink alcohol (also at Afyon), shop for themselves, visit taverns and restaurants - and also visit the local railway brothel.
The figures relating to the death rates in the camps have also been exaggerated over the years. It was to the benefit of the British Government to exaggerate Turkish behaviour to justify the take-over and carving up of Ottoman territory after the war. "
Dr J L Inspector, HSIE (History)
So Ms Rowland you see the truth is in fact the opposite. It was the British who kept innocent men jailed in order to rescue their own men. It was Political expediency but not for the Turks benefit but for the benefit of the British, knowing these Turkish men to be innocent they held out until an agreement of settlement was reached between the Turks. Nowhere in Mr Robertson's opinion does it mention those documents mentioned above from the British Archives. So I ask you how is it that a Right of Reply or Natural Justice been provided for the Turks?
As you stated, everybody is entitled to their own opinions as is Mr Robertson and yourself, BUT what you are NOT entitled to is the proven historical facts.
Moving on again both you and Mr Robertson refer to the infamous "Hitler" quote which has been found to be yet another Armenian fabricated forgery. In fact found out to be a forgery by an Honourable Armenian Dr John Robert of New York.
See his detailed work at the end of this letter and yet again FACT CHECK if you so desire. We know that you won't you'll continue like Mr Robertson QC to refer to the fabricated Hitler quote because you believe it bolsters you argument. That is dishonest and despicable.
As Dr Pat Walsh stated,
"The message is clear: to deny the allegations of an Armenian ‘genocide’ is to be a ‘Holocaust denier’ – so beware!"
See Dr Walsh's full speech at the end of this letter.
Now there is much much more I could well say and provide you with source documents but I do not have the time nor inclination to try and convince a dishonest politician of the truth. As I say above Ms Rowland both you and Mr Robertson are entitled to your opinions but your are certainly NOT entitled to your own FACTS.
Therefore I call you a dishonest person with no integrity whatsoever. When will the Australians of Turkish descent have their right of reply in Parliament? I personally challenge you to a debate on this issue.
In your speech in parliament mentioned above you state;-
" I think it is very important for us to reflect on the fact that so many people who were pictured in the videos that we saw at that event they were probably the ancestors those victims were probably the ancestors of many people who were watching that and I found it very difficult to watch a lot of the footage that was provided on that occasion, and as for baby [unknown spelling of baby's name] who was born only a few weeks ago she was in her mother's womb at the time in the audience watching me, and she is now obviously a very happy little baby and against the odds for many of her people she has made a safe home in Australia. She will grow up to be a wonderful Australian woman I know with fantastic parents and a fantastic community around her. ............. that Australia's first major international humanitarian relief effort was in fact to help Armenian orphans from the genocide "
Well I would like to inform you that I am very lucky to be alive here in Australia today because many of my maternal grandmothers relatives were murdered by Armenians in Kars during the material times subject to this issue. Who will cry for them? Who will speak for them?
My Grandmother was only a baby when her and her Aunty narrowly escaped the Armenian murderers in Kars. Her own Mother was not so lucky she was murdered by Armenians, that is my maternal Great Grandmother.
You say above that little innocent child belonging to your friends, "will grow up to be a wonderful Australian woman... with fantastic parents and community around her." What about the many wonderful Turkish children born in Australia and their parents who have contributed so much to Australian Society?
Further, as you no doubt are aware The Consul General of the Republic of Turkey Mr Sarik Ariyak and his Diplomatic Security Attaché were murdered at Dover Heights in Sydney in 1980, by Armenian Terrorists and the Turkish Consulate in Melbourne was bombed by Armenian Terrorists in 1986.
Were you aware that the NSW Police have intelligence which stipulates that the Armenian Community in the Northern Suburbs of Sydney gathered funds and financed the Murderers of Mr Ariyak and Mr Sever?
I would like to ask you what you would have said to Mrs Ariyak and her 8 year old daughter who witnessed the slaughter of their Husband and Father respectively?
What would you have said to the now deceased parents of Mr Sever who was their ONLY child?
But it doesn't matter to people like you does it? Because they were only Muslim Turks their lives had no value to you and your ilk.
So in short I congratulate you for joining the ranks of the dishonest, hatred inciting, terrorism supporting imbeciles, and ask you one last question with all sincerity what will it take for the Turkish side of the story to be told?
That is when will we be given our natural justice, due process or Right of Reply? When some disenfranchised, mentally unstable Turk or Turks decide to commit murder, for exampling murdering some Australian Politician and/or bombing an Australian Diplomatic Mission overseas before we get noticed?
Let me reproduce for you what their Honours from the Court of Appeal in Victoria said about Demirian the bomber of the Turkish consulate:-
In a joint judgment, McGarvie and O'Bryan JJ said:
“The type of activity engaged in by the applicant and others is rare in this country but terrorist acts are commonplace in the country from whence the applicant emigrated to Australia. Unless courts in this country are vigilant in imposing condign sentences for such conduct evil-minded persons might seek to emulate this conduct. The conduct of the applicant in conspiring with others to endanger life and cause serious injury to property by detonating an explosive substance beneath the Consulate brought shame to this country when the bomb exploded. The Turkish nation is a friendly power and members of the Turkish community now assimilated into Australian society were affronted by this evil deed. The heinousness of the crime is accentuated by the fact that the applicant abused the sanctuary this country offered him.
When a crime of such notoriety and heinousness is committed in the name of a political cause this Court is not required to fix a minimum term. The political nature of the offence and its seriousness render the fixing of such a term inappropriate. A sentence imposed in these circumstances should be exceptional to mark the seriousness with which the crime is viewed and therefore no minimum term should be fixed.” (1988 33 A Crim R at p 474)
Tadgell J agreed, in relation to that aspect of the appeal (at p 481).
Is that the sort of thing you want to see on the streets of Australia? Is that your intention? Australians of Turkish descent are sick and tired for being denied their right of reply for decades now and almost a Century.
I doubt very much you will even respond to this letter let alone answer any of the questions asked of you. So I make it an open letter for people of independent minds to ask you those questions and know our side of the story.
HISTORIAN OF ARMENIAN DESCENT SAYS FREQUENTLY USED HITLER QUOTE IS NOTHING BUT A FORGERY
Baden-Baden, W. Germany - Dr. Robert John, a historian and political analyst of Armenian descent from New York City, declared here that a commonly used quotation of an alleged statement by Adolf Hitler concerning the Armenian massacres was a forgery and should not be used.
Dr. John demonstrated how he had traced the original document in the Military Branch of the National Archives of the U.S.A. after being handed a folder bearing the quotation at a rally outside the United Nations building in New York following the Turkish invasion of Cyprus.
The quotation: “Our strength is in our quickness and our brutality.... For the time being I have sent to the east only Death’s Heads units, with the order to kill without pity or mercy all men, women and children... Who talks nowadays of the extermination of the Armenians?”
Dr. John showed slides of this document, undated and unsigned, with some words cut out of the last page. The statement was supposed to have been made at a meeting of the top German staff of the Obersalzberg on August 22, 1939. The document was released to the international press covering the Nuremberg War Crimes trials on Friday, November 23, 1945. The trials had commenced that Monday. The document was one of several made available to the press that day. Two-hundred-fifty copies were given to press correspondents, but only five copies were given to the 17 defense counsels - 24 hours before the Court convened on Monday!
Much later in the trial, the German defense lawyers were able to introduce the most complete account of the address, taken down by German Admiral Hermann Boehm, which runs to 12 pages in translation. There is no mention of the Armenians or the rest of the “quotation.”
Dr. Robert John said he believed that the document was introduced to create a climate of hate which was needed to stifle the protests of eminent American jurists such as Sen. R. Taft and Chief Justice Harland Stone. He had discussed it with Gen. Telford Taylor, who had said, “I know the document you mean, I don’t know its provenance, and I have not used it in my own work.”
“We all believe that violence breeds violence,” said Dr. John. “There has been an increase in Armenian violence since this false inflammatory statement was given publicly. Films like ‘The Day After’ are a form of violence, and should not be shown to children - who are unable to evaluate their content. Films about the “Holocaust” are a form of violence and are harmful to us as well as to Jews.
There is a high probability that the surprising violence and brutality shown by the Israelis towards the
Palestinians, may be a result of being frequently exposed to these old scenes. Just as parents who abuse their children have often been abused themselves.”
Dr. John briefly traced the history of atrocity propaganda, particularly from the British — and later — American view. Real atrocities certainly occurred, but the deliberate fabrication and dissemination of atrocity stories increased the probability of their occurring. “Hate hurts the hater and hated. We are still living in the haze of distortions and actual horrors which occurred so long ago.” he commented.
“The time has come to stop psychologically damaging ourselves and our children by “Holocaust studies” and Holocaust” museums,” he continued. “The Armenian, the Jew, or the African, should not damage their development with a continual conditioning of hate, neither should spurious guilt be visited upon others. These negative preoccupations and obsessions are obstructing our evolution.”
Dr. John, whose paper is entitled “Information and Misinformation,” hails from Armenian parents who moved from New Julla, Iran to India. His father changed his name from Hovhanes to “John,” and subsequently the family moved to England. Dr. John studies law in England and holds a doctoral
degree in political science from London University. He is presently a contributor to the London, England based The Middle East Magazine monthly, and in addition to giving lectures, is a frequent contributor to numerous magazines and publications. He is also the author of Palestine Diary, and specializes in Middle Eastern issues, including the Palestinian issue.
“America’s Leading Armenian Newspaper,” August 2, 1984
Dr Pat Walsh's speech re Geoffrey Robertson QC's Opinion
Dr Pat Walsh: Morgenthau’s Book Is A Propagandist Construct Around Actual Events, For A Political Purpose
Dr. Pat Walsh’ Speech, Istanbul, March 30, 2013, “Rahmi M. Koc. Museum”
It gives me great pleasure to launch ‘Preposterous Paradoxes of Ambassador Morgenthau’ by Şükrü Server Aya on behalf of Athol Books. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of you for coming to this significant event and hope you will take something away from it. Athol Books sees this event as part of a project to re-establish Ireland’s and Turkey’s common links in History going back to the time when the Ottoman Sultan Abdulmajid I provided much needed relief to the Irish people during the Great Famine of 1847.
It encompasses the links between the countries’ independence struggles at the close of World War I. The founding document of Irish independence, ‘The 1916 Proclamation’ addresses “our gallant allies in Europe” and Dáil’s Éireann’s first venture into foreign affairs, ‘Message to the Free Nations of the World’ was delivered to the Grand National Assembly at Ankara, in late 1921.
Both Turkey and Ireland had treaties imposed upon them in 1920/1 by the same Great Power. Ataturk was written about in Ireland as a great inspiration to those struggling against Imperialism, showing how foreign imposed treaties could be broken and an independent nation emerge.
This will be the fourth book by Şükrü Aya published in English on the tragic events of 1915 in Eastern Anatolia. Aya’s method is straightforward and involves finding the “documented facts” and laying them down to the “judgment of the reader”. His work is an important addition to the effort to find the truth behind events that are being increasingly rendered historically false and presented in the realm of political propaganda. . .
I would like to start with a story that will show you the importance of the issue that Şükrü Aya writes about in his new book.
About a year ago I attended a residential course for History teachers. This course was in Northern Ireland, where I come from, and which, you will all be aware, has experienced many years of conflict.
In recent years many organizations have had an interest in promoting ‘conflict resolution’ and the one that held this conference is from Massachusetts in the United States and is called ‘Facing History and Ourselves.’
The conference was mainly about teaching children the lessons of the Jewish Holocaust - presumably so that things like this would not be repeated. A 600 page book was given to the teachers in attendance with readings to use in the classroom. It is called ‘Facing History and Ourselves – Holocaust and Human Behavior’
Although this book has over 500 pages of readings and commentaries on the Jewish Holocaust it also has a section on the Armenians and the events of 1915. It says “In 1915, soon after the war began, Turkey, which then ruled the Ottoman Empire, turned against the Armenians, a Christian minority that had lived for generations within the Muslim Ottoman Empire. The Armenians were accused of divided loyalties, because there were Armenians in Russia as well as in the Ottoman Empire and Russia was now the enemy.” (p.103)
There was no background about how the Armenians had lived as the ‘loyal community’ for centuries in the great collaboration of the Ottoman Empire, no mention of the 1907 agreement between Britain and Russia that effectively promised Constantinople to the Czar in return for his help in destroying Germany in a coming war; no explanation about how the Great War had come to the Ottoman Empire, no hint of why Russia had suddenly become ‘the enemy,’ and nothing at all about the activities of Armenian nationalists that might have encouraged the belief that they then had ‘divided loyalties.’
The next section of the book contains a long reading from ‘Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story’ which is presented as entirely factual and is used as evidence of what is termed “the greatest crime of the ages.”
At the end of this reading the book says; “The word genocide was coined during World War II to describe the murder of an entire people. Although the word did not yet exist in 1915, the crime took place nonetheless.” (p.106)
This is completely inaccurate. The word ‘genocide’ existed in 1915. However, the word ‘extirpate’ was used much more widely in the English-speaking world at that time. Charles Dilke used it to say in his best-selling book ‘Greater Britain’ that the Anglo-Saxons were the greatest genocidal force in history. He said this in praise of genocide as a law of nature and being part of ‘progress’.
Nothing like the ‘extirpation’ practiced by European colonialism is applicable to the Ottoman State in relation to the Armenians or any other minority within the territory of the Empire. In fact, the Ottomans were criticized by British writers for their easy-going tolerance of races which, it was suggested, was leading to the demise of their empire. The British Social Darwinists were, in particular, appalled at the way the Ottomans had inter-married and incorporated other races into the governing of their empire and had blended aspects of their cultures into the Ottoman mix.
The book I was given connects its main subject of the Jewish Holocaust with the events of 1915 with the following sentence: “In 1939, as Hitler planned the murder of the Jews, he asked, “Who after all speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?”
This is despite the fact that the document that contains the notorious Hitler quote was rejected by the Nuremburg Court as an obvious forgery.
There is another reading in the book called ‘Truth: The Last Victim of Genocide’ and one called ‘The Politics of Denial.’ It contains the text from a debate held in the U.S. Senate in February 1990 and offers “copies of articles and documents to refute Senator Byrd and his supporters.” i.e. those who questioned the allegation of denial (p.505).
The message is clear: to deny the allegations of an Armenian ‘genocide’ is to be a ‘Holocaust denier’ – so beware!
Not surprisingly, none of the young teachers questioned anything said at this conference. It is easy to be overawed by the material on the Nazis and the Holocaust and the tendency is to keep quiet, even when it is being linked to events in Ottoman Turkey or Ireland. I think everyone present doubted the relevance of it to Ireland but no one knew much about the Armenians or the Ottomans so there would have been a general unquestioning acceptance of this material. And if anyone had any thoughts they were surely deterred by the warning that they would be lining up with the ‘Holocaust deniers.’
I questioned what I was hearing at this conference and was immediately treated as if I had offended some scripture in a sacred religious book. I tried to explain that I knew something of these events and their context, having researched and written a book about Britain’s Great War on Turkey and that the depiction of the Ottoman Empire was a travesty of the truth and its explanation of the why the Ottomans relocated the Armenians was a simplistic distortion.
I could also not see why teachers needed ‘free resources’ to refute the case against an Armenian ‘genocide.’ What had that to do with the teaching of history? It was sheer political propaganda and brainwashing!
I think it must have been the first time someone had argued against what these people were saying and requiring us to believe and teach. They seemed to be shocked that anyone would even question them. But they chose not to argue. Debate was closed!
This reminded me of Geoffrey Robertson QC.
I presume that you will be aware of Geoffrey Robertson QC as being one of the prime movers in wishing to charge Turkey with genocide over the events that happened in Anatolia in 1915.
Mr. Robertson has put it on record that he wishes for historians to stop discussing the events of 1915 altogether. He declared in Yerevan last year that:
“The historians have completed their mission, now it is the time for judges, who will demand proper punishment for guilt and compensation for the Genocide victims. It is no longer a subject of historians but judges.”
Whatever about the historians, Şükrü Aya has not completed his mission…
In the ‘New Statesman’ of 10th December 2009 Robertson made it clear that the case, for him, is already closed. He stated: “… genocide is a matter for legal judgment, not a matter for historians, and there is no dispute about the Armenian genocide among legal scholars.”
It is clear from this statement that Robertson does not want books like Şükrü Server Aya’s to be written and he wants historians to be silenced about history. He wishes International Law to be the supreme arbiter on history and its decision to be final and binding.
By reducing the event of ‘genocide’ to a legal decision one is making it into a subjective judgment and a weapon of foreign policy for the purposes of gaining leverage on other states.
I do not share Robertson’s faith in International Law. It seems to me to be applied only when it suits the great powers in the world and forgotten about when it does not. It is overwhelmingly applied to the ‘lesser states’ by the ‘superior’ states who appear to be above it themselves. In many ways it is the old ‘civilizing’ mission of Imperialism in a new guise of ‘ethical foreign policy’.
So I prefer to trust in the historians who look for the truth, like Şükrü Aya.
When you know that historically inaccurate propaganda material is being presented across the English-speaking world to teachers in order to inform impressionable children and jurists like Geoffrey Robertson are urging an ‘end of history’ and ‘case closed’ you can see the importance of Sükrü Aya’s book.
The important point in my story is how central the book of Ambassador Morgenthau remains. It is the corner-stone of the case against the Ottomans about the events of 1915.
As Professor Justin McCarthy says:
“Morgenthau has long held a prominent place in what has become the popularly accepted history of the events of World War I. His descriptions of Armenian suffering feature prominently in accusations that the Ottomans committed genocide. The difficulty, as demonstrated by Aya, is that Morgenthau readily accepted fabricated evidence and himself falsified the record.”
Morgenthau spent 26 months as U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire from November 1913 to February 1916. During this time he composed a lengthy diary and many letters which formed the basis of his book, ‘Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story.’ The book contains narrations of long conversations with, and statements of, various German and Ottoman officials which are placed in quotation marks. This device adds credibility to the account - as if the statements are taken down verbatim. And yet they cannot be found in the diary or letters, the original sources of the book.
The book seems to have been the concoction of a team of propagandists. The journalist, Burton J. Hendrick was the sensationalist ghost-writer. Morgenthau’s Armenian Secretary, Hagop S. Andonian, on whom the Ambassador relied for translations, was heavily involved after being allowed to ‘elaborate’ himself in writing up the original diary. The Ambassador’s interpreter, Arshag K. Schmavonian was another key constructor.
And Morgenthau had no direct experience of the events he was writing about in Eastern Anatolia, having never left Istanbul in his tenure as Ambassador.
It is perhaps not fully understood that Morgenthau’s work had serious implications for the future peace of the world. Its intention was to foster an American intervention in what was fundamentally an Imperialist war on Germany and the Ottoman Empire. The U.S., acting on the principles of George Washington, was disinclined to join this foreign war of conquest but it did so with the help of Morgenthau’s propaganda and the British Wellington House publications it fed into.
Only with U.S. assistance were Britain and France able to crush Germany and seize the territories of the Ottoman Empire they desired to control. The result was a punitive peace treaty and economic ruin in Europe that produced Hitler and the Nazis and another World War two decades later. And the results of the Imperialist conquests of Britain and France that Morgenthau’s propaganda facilitated and the states they constructed are still to be seen in the Middle East today.
Professor McCarthy explains how Şükrü Aya demolishes Morgenthau’s published account:
“Aya’s method is simple. He takes Morgenthau’s statements and identifies the false, the prejudiced, and the impossible. He compares Morgenthau’s written accounts with his diaries, showing that much of what Morgenthau allegedly heard from Ottoman officials on plans to exterminate Armenians was complete invention. He analyzes the prejudices and political calculations that led to Morgenthau’s deception.”
Sükrü Aya was no scholar but he became a historian because of the sloppy work produced by those who are paid and honoured with titles to do better. Perhaps his experiences of commercial life has made him prepared to do the hard work of research that the academics avoided. Many professional historians seem to have contented themselves with relying on material like Morgenthau’s book as if it were the ‘truth’ rather than what it actually is – a propagandist construct around actual events, for a political purpose.
They really should have done the job Sükrü has done. But perhaps it would not have advanced their careers! Şükrü Aya has no concern for such things - his only interests are the facts and the truth!
" All Turkish children also should be killed as they form a danger to the Armenian nation"
Hamparsum Boyaciyan, nicknamed "Murad," a former Ottoman parliamentarian who led Armenian guerilla forces, ravaging Turkish villages behind the lines, 1914. Cited from Mikael Varandean, "History of the Dashnaktsutiun." (Alternately known as "History of the A.R.Federation" ["H. H. Dashnaktsutyan Patmutiwn," Paris,1932 and Cairo,1950]. The author [1874-1934] has other works, including "L'Arménie et la Question Arménienne," noted in the library as "Delegation propaganda authenticated by the Armenian delegation at the Paris Peace Conference, 1919"])
"I killed Muslims by every means possible. Yet it is sometimes a pity to waste bullets for this. The best way is to gather all of these dogs and throw them into wells and then fill the wells with big and heavy stones. as I did. I gathered all of the women, men and children, threw big stones down on top of them. They must never live on this earth."
A. Lalayan, Revolutsionniy Vostok (Revolutionary East) No: 2-3, Moscow, 1936. (Highly deceptive Armenian activists on the Internet are spreading rumors there is no Lalayan. The above quote has been confirmed. Lalaian was an Armenian Soviet historian and the Dashnag report above was first published in issue 2-3 of the magazine, Revolyutsionniy Vostok and then in issue 2 of Istoricheskie Zapisky, the organ of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Institute of History, The above quote is from a proud Dashnag officer, Aslem Varaam, in the report he wrote from the Beyazit-Vaaram region in 1920, Updated translation:: “I exterminated the Turkish population in Bashar-Gechar without making any exceptions. One sometimes feels the bullets shouldn’t be wasted. So, the most effective way against these dogs is to collect the people who have survived the clashes and dump them in deep holes and crush them under heavy rocks pressed from above, not to let them inhabit this world any longer. So I did accordingly. I collected all the women, men and children and extinguished their lives in the deep holes I dumped them into, crushing them with rocks.”)
"When we arrived at Zeve, the village couldn't be passed through because of its stench. It was as if the bones in our noses would fall off... There were bodies everywhere. We saw a weird scene on the threshold of one house: they had filled the house with Muslims and burned it, and so many people had been burnt that the fat that had oozed from under the threshold had turned back into the trench in front of the door. That is, it was as if the river of fat had risen and later receded. The fat was still fresh. The entire village had been destroyed and was in this situation. I saw this with my own eyes, and I'll never forget it. We heard that they did the same thing to the Muslims on Carpanak Island. The Armenians told me about the latter; I did not see it for myself.”
Haci Osman Gemicioglu, an Armenian-Turk (having converted to Islam) who eyewitnessed the 1915 Zeve massacre; as told to Huseyin Celik, during interviews conducted in the late 1970s-early 80s.
"Only 1,500 Turks remain in Van"
The Gochnag, an Armenian newspaper published in the United States, May 24,1915 ... in a proud report documenting the slaughter of the Turkish citizenry of Van. (Holdwater: this Internet quote needs to be verified. The date is wrong; the closest issues for the weekly are from May 22 and May 29. The origin evidently was a 1982 publication from Ankara's Institute of Foreign Policy, entitled "Ermeni Sorunu [Armenian Question], 9 soru 9 cevap," page 23. Guenter Lewy states on p. 98 of his 2005 "Disputed Genocide" book that 3,000 Muslims were left in Van.)
"Thousands of Armenians from all over the world, flocked to the standards of such famous fighters as Antranik, Kery, Dro, etc. The Armenian volunteer regiments rendered valuable service to the Russian Army in the years of 1914-15-16."
Kapriel Serope Papazian, Patriotism Perverted, Boston Baker Press, 1934, pg. 38
"With the decline of Ottoman power, and the formalization of tyranny, the spirit of the Zeitun mountaineers remained alert. The government launched a number of expeditions against the town, but these were unsuccessful. The warrior spirit of its armed inhabitants, and its fortress-like setting, made Zeitun a natural focus for the attention of a nationalist or revolutionary, who had seen the success of the revolts in Greece and Serbia. Perhaps a similar success could be gained in Cilicia..."
(Christopher J. Walker, Armenia, The Survival of a Nation, Croom Helm, London / St. Martin's Press, N. Y., 1980, pp. 100-101).
"I have it from absolute first-hand information that the
Armenians in the Caucasus attacked Tartar (Muslim) villages
that are utterly defenseless and bombarded these villages
with artillery and they murder the inhabitants, pillage the
village and often burn the village."
Admiral Mark Bristol, Bristol Papers, General Correspondence: Container #32: Bristol to Bradley Letter of September 14, 1920.
"The Moslems who did not succeed in escaping [the city] were put to death..."
Grace H. Knapp, The Tragedy of Bitlis, Fleming H. Revell Co., New York (1919) , page 146.
"We closed the roads and mountain passes that might serve as ways of escape for the Tartars (Turks), and then proceeded in the work of extermination. Our troops surrounded village after village. Little resistance was offered. Our artillery knocked the huts into heaps of stones and dust, and when the villages became untenable and the inhabitants fled from them into the fields, bullets and bayonets completed the work."
Ohanus Appressian, describing incidents in 1919; Memoirs of an Armenian officer, Men are Like That, 1926.
"This three-day massacre by Armenians is recorded in history as the 'March Events' and thousands of Muslims, old people, women and children lost their lives."
F. Kazemzadeh, The Struggle for Transcaucasia (New York, 1951), p. 69. (This excerpt refers not to Armenian atrocities against Ottoman Turks, but to "Tartar" (derogatory for "Tatar") Turks, when Armenia attacked Azerbaijan in 1918. Regarding this period of March 30 to April 1 1918, Vladimir Lenin said that commissar S. Shaumyan, the chief architect of the massacres throughout Azerbaijan, “turned Baku into an Armenian operated henhouse [slaughterhouse].” According to Justin McCarthy's “Death and Exile," "Between 8,000 and 12,000 Muslims were killed in Baku alone.…”)
“As the Armenians found support among the Reds (who regarded the Tartars as a counter-revolutionary elements) the fighting soon became a massacre of the Tartar population”
W. E. D. Allen and Paul Muratoff, “Caucasian Battlefields”, Cambridge University Press, 1953, p. 481
"Many massacres were committed by the Armenians until our army arrived in Erzurum... (after General Odesilitze left) 2,127 Muslim bodies were buried in Erzurum's center. These are entirely men. There are ax, bayonet and bullet wounds on the dead bodies. Lungs of the bodies were removed and sharp stakes were struck in the eyes. There are other bodies around the city."
Official telegram of the Third Royal Army Command, addressed to the Supreme Command, March 19, 1918; ATASE Archive of General Staff, Archive No: 4-36-71. D. 231. G.2. K. 2820. Dos.A-69, Fih.3.
"There is little news from the interior save that the Russians have entered Van. The contingent is mostly composed of Armenian volunteers who fight with desperate courage, but whose excesses have shocked even the Russian commanders."
Lewis Einstein, "Inside Constantinople – A [Diplomat's] Diary During the Dardanelles Expedition, April-September, 1915,". 1917, p. 68; John Murray, London. The book is a daily recording of what Einstein saw, heard, received and possibly imagined with cleverly inserted passages on the Armenian massacres. Curiously, Ambassador Morgenthau is not mentioned at all.
"The Armenians did exterminate the entire Muslim population of Russian Armenia as Muslims were considered inferior to the Armenians by the prominent leaders of the Dashnaks."
Mikael Kaprilian, Armenian revolutionary leader, in Yerevan, 1919.
"In Soviet Armenia today there no longer exists a single Turkish soul."
Sahak Melkonian, Preserving the Armenian Purity, 1920
"Literally Tzeghagron means 'to make a religion of one’s race.' Patterned after the Nazi Youth It was also called Racial Patriots. Nejdeh wrote: 'The Racial Religious believes in his racial blood as a deity. Race above everything and before everything. Race comes first. Everything is for the race.' In the April 10, 1936, issue of Hairenik Weekly, Nejdeh stated: 'Today Germany and Italy are strong because as a nation they live and breathe in terms of race.' From Racial Patriots and Tzeghagrons, the name of the [Boston] Dashnag youth group was later changed to Armenian Youth Federation, or the AYF, as it is currently known."
John Roy Carlson, a.k.a. Arto Derounian, "The Armenian Displaced Persons," Armenian Affairs, 1949-50, p. 19.
Further attached details not reproduced.
There are few Australians competent to pass judgment on what happened in late Ottoman history, yet there is no shortage of Australians who do just that. On May 8 this year the NSW Legislative Assembly reaffirmed a resolution it passed in 1997 recognizing and condemning alleged genocides of Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks by the Ottoman government between 1915 and 1922. . . .
Let’s take the last of these dates first. It was in 1922 that the Turkish nationalists succeeded in driving back to the sea a Greek army ferried across the Aegean by an allied fleet in 1919. Landing in Izmir on May 19, the Greeks began committing atrocities immediately and continued to commit then until finally defeated by the Turks in 1922. Visiting the region in 1921, Arnold Toynbee wrote of a ‘war of extermination’ being conducted by the Greeks against the Turks. Indeed, only six months after the Greek landing, an Interallied Commission of Inquiry had concluded that in areas invaded by the Greeks ‘there is a systematic plan of destruction of the Turkish villages and extinction of the Moslem population. This plan is being carried out by Greek and Armenian bands which appear to operate under Greek instructions and sometimes even with the assistance of Greek regular troops.’ The representative of the International Red Cross, M. Gehri, found that elements of the Greek army had been employed in the extermination of the Muslim population. The Greeks almost reached Ankara before their campaign finally collapsed in the face of Turkish resistance. This catastrophic enterprise culminated in a population exchange which uprooted Turks from their homeland in Greece and Greeks from their homeland in western Anatolia.
Elsewhere, between the end of the war and 1922, in eastern Anatolia, the Caucasus and southeastern Anatolia, the British, the French, Armenians, Georgians, Azerbaijanis, Kurds, Turks, white Russians and the Bolsheviks were involved in a bloody free-for-all over domination of territory and control of resources, especially the oil of the Caspian sea and the deep water ports and cotton fields of the eastern Mediterranean. The perpetrators of violence were not all on one side and the victims on the other. Both were on all sides.
As for the Armenians and the war itself, the critical date in 1915 was not April 24, when Armenian committees in Istanbul and elsewhere were closed down and their members arrested, but a week earlier when thousands of Armenians launched an uprising in the eastern Anatolian city of Van. Within a month they had captured the city, handed it over to Russia, the enemy, slaughtering many thousands of Muslims in Van and in the villages around the nearby lake and triggering off a mass exodus of refugees.
It was this uprising that triggered off the recommendation of the Ottoman military command - later ratified by the government - that all Armenians should be moved out of the war zone. The ‘relocation’ order was issued towards the end of May. The Ottoman government argued, and the Turkish government still argues, that the decision was driven by sabotage of lines of supply and communications by thousands of Armenian irregulars fighting in tandem with the Russian army for the ‘liberation’ of Anatolian provinces in which Armenians constituted less than 20 per cent of the overall population. The Tsar used Armenians and Assyrians just as the British used the Arabs, with both being promised an independence they never got.
Armenians had been attacking Muslim villages from the outbreak of the war up to the time the ‘relocation’ order was issued. In January, 1915, the Ottoman Third Army, responsible for the defence of northeastern Anatolia, had been shattered by the Russian defeat at Sarikamis. Tens of thousands of men froze to death overnight and the army remained incapable of launching offensive operations for three years. With all young Muslims of fighting age off at the front at Gallipoli and in Mesopotamia or northwest Persia, villages were largely undefended. The military command had been unable to stem Armenian attacks on lines of supply and communications and the triumph of the Armenians and Russians at Van, was the final straw.
Close to three million Ottoman civilians died in this war, from all causes, including massacre, disease, exposure and malnutrition. About 2.5 million were Muslims. The figure of 1.5 million Ottoman Armenian dead is an exaggeration, given that this was about the total number of Armenians living in Ottoman lands and that hundreds of thousands survived the war.
The true Armenian figure for death from all causes during the course of the war was probably between 600,000 to 800,0000, which itself is a huge number. The population of the eastern provinces, Muslim and Christian, was in some cases reduced by 40 to 60 per cent.
Figures compiled from documents written at the time by army commanders and officials returning to recaptured land indicate that about 500,000 Muslims were massacred during the war, mostly in eastern Anatolia by Russian and/or Armenian forces, and mostly when the region was occupied by Russian forces and their Armenian protégés from 1916 to 1918. Ottoman forces returned to a charnel house. The Russians themselves were shocked by Armenian violence towards Muslims, especially the Kurds. As related by the survivors in documents kept in Ottoman archives, the crimes committed were as inhumane as any that might be imagined.
The Armenians suffered terribly in the war but so did everyone else. The ‘relocation’ was a particular act. The reasons for the decision cannot be taken out of the context of military history, whatever judgments people want to pass. Sent southwards in poorly guarded convoys because there was not the manpower to protect them, the Armenians were attacked on the way by Kurdish and Arab tribes. Revenge for massacres committed by Armenians was a clear motive. The Ottoman archives contain numerous documents sent in code to provincial officials, urging them to take more stringent measures to protect the convoys. Towards the end of 1915 commissions were set up to investigate the crimes that had been committed. In the court-martials of close to 1600 officials, gendarmes and soldiers which followed, some of those found guilty were executed and others were imprisoned. After the war Kurdish tribal leaders estimated that about 400,000 of their people had been killed by Armenians, conceding that they had killed about the same number in return. The extent to which massacre and counter massacre in eastern Anatolia was the culmination of longstanding conflict between Kurds and Armenians has never been fully acknowledged.
All of the foregoing only scratches the surface of what is generally not known in the western cultural mainstream. While it would not be helpful for Turkey to put obstacles in the way of Australian politicians planning to visit Gallipoli, it would help if these same politicians made it their business to take note of what Turks are saying rather than passing resolutions born of ignorance and propaganda. The First World War, as it was fought in Ottoman lands, was a war of annihilation from which no one comes out with clean hands, including the ancestors of the ethno-religious groups now making accusations of genocide against ‘the Turks.’ Perpetrators and victims are to be found on the same side all around. The day that these groups demanding recognition of ‘genocide’ own up to the terrible crimes committed by their forefathers will be the day true reconciliation begins. Australian politicians should leave this issue to the historians and if local councils want to build monuments to the victims of this terrible war it should be to all of them, and not one group. They are united in death just as some of their ancestors are unfortunately united in blind hatred.
- Comments by Sukru S. Aya:
- 1- Thanks to Prof. Jeremy Salt for his all-time objective explanation. I deplore that Australian media censored this
comment of their own reputed citizen-scholar, like they obstructed Prof. Justin McCarthy to prove the opposite.
- 2- Mr. Salt speaks of Armenians losses between minimum 600.000 to maximum 800.000 which is a guess.
- 3- Prof. Justin McCarthy,(most dependable demographer) puts the maximim loss to about 580.000 but due to all reasons, between 1914 - 1923, to which I would agree but clarify that between the 2 year (1918-1920) rule of the Dashnak Armenian Republic, (and accodring to hisorian A.A.Lalaian) 195.000 Armenians died in their own country due to epidemics and starvation. League of Nations Gen.Secretary Fridthjof Nansen, reported in their Official Gazette of Sept.21,1929 that "Armenians fought for the Allied Powers and 200.000 volunteers sacrificed their lives in fighting. When we subtract these from 580.000 we have a loss of only 185.000 under the Ottoman rule, including the period of occupation after "Mudros ceasefire". The U.S. Senate Resolved on April 22, 1922 that on 31.12.1921 there were 1.414.000 Armenans alive in Armenia, Turkey, Syria and the region mostly in need of help. See Posting armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2010/08/3131-near-east-relief-31-dec-1921.html
- 4- Below past postings in this blog, demonstrate the futile struggle of the "few but true truth defenders" before this "crash in Austro-Turkish friendly relations" took place, despite the many advance warning to which authorities had closed their eyes, ears and lips. Will there be any one taking note of these and looking into mirrors? I still doubt it very much.
Sukru S. Aya
Comments by Sadi Dinlenc
Thank you for keeping us informed of the most recent developments regarding the so called Genocide Resolution Approval in the State of NSW in Australia by printing the excellent article written by none other than an Australian Professor of History, Mr. Jeremy Salt.
In the last 100 years, a geographically distant country like Australia has been misled, not once but twice, regarding her decisions related to Turkey; the first one was in 1915, misled by the British Government of that time, by sending to their deaths of thousands of Australian young soldiers to Dardanelles to fight for or with them against the Ottoman Turks.
The second one is nowadays, in 2013, misled by two of the New South Wales Government Ministers of Armenian heritage in Australia, by approving as a genocide a piece of history, almost 100 years old which is proven to be false and highly debatable.
Yet, the Aussies don't seem to learn their lessons. What were you doing at Dardanells, Turkey, which you did not even know it existed, 100 years ago, at the other end of the world, and now in 2013, what are you doing now regarding an Armenian issue which you did not know existed or happened 95 years ago, with no Australian involvement in it.
Sadi Dinlenc, New York
Letter To Australian MP Rowland By Sukru Aya 27.11.13