0048) Toynbee And His Blue Books / War-Time Disinformation And "The Blue Book"

The Gomidas Institute glowingly describes the reprint of the Blue Book, at gomidas.org/books/bryce.htm; this is the Bible of the Armenian "Genocide," "one of the most solid and influential sources on the Armenian Genocide." Armenian Forum co-editor got down to the nitty-gritty and came up with the names (and we'll see how he managed to do that, by examining the actual correspondence of the principals) for sources identified under terms such as . . "an especially well informed neutral source."

"Toynbee carefully compiled and verified dozens of eyewitness accounts from different parts of the Ottoman Empire. These accounts provided the basis for Bryce’s brilliant thesis on the Genocide, published while the crime was still in progress," Gomidas tells us, continuing, "The book includes eyewitness accounts from United States consular and missionary sources, as well as the testimony of German, Italian, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Greek, Kurdish, and Armenian witnesses." As if those last identified European country representatives did not mostly stem from the ranks of the missionaries; how dishonest. We'll see shortly what Arnold Toynbee himself termed as "all" of his Blue Book sources, and it doesn't sound like there were many non-missionaries among them.

"In his introduction, Sarafian takes issue with the repeated assertions of Turkish nationalist authors, who claim that the Blue Book was a British propaganda fabrication. He demonstrates the intellectual pedigree of the work. He shows exactly how testimonies were collected, authenticated, and then used in the book."

Brother! That's going to take a lot of convincing, that racist missionaries with religious and political reasons to deviate from truth, were examples of "intellectual pedigree." Gomidas then faults "Generations of official historians of Turkey," including Justin McCarthy, insisting the Blue Book "lacks credibility."

They forgot to add Arnold Toynbee to that list of detractors, who said about his work as a Wellington House fabricator: "wartime propaganda."

But they're going to try. Armenians pulling the wool over people's eyes has become an art form well before Vahan Cardashian shrieked anything and everything to serve "genocide" purposes. (Cardashian may have merely perfected the skill.) We get favorable reviews from the Times Literary Supplement ("Sarafian convincingly rebuts the claims that there was any falsification") and Lord Avebury of the British House of Lords, who points to this hogwash as "evidence."

"The Uncensored Edition of the Blue Book was published with the generous support of Dr. Rostom Stepanian and the Committee for the Recognition of the Armenian Genocide." Ahh, the Armenians and their never-yielding deep pockets to affirm their obsession.

Gomidas offers a table of contents of the Blue Book, rather widely available on the Internet anyway, at gomidas.org/books/bryce-toc.htm. Other than the racist/religious bigots who formed the ranks of consuls and missionaries, we get other lovely "impartial" sources such as relief workers and Armenian newspapers like "Gotchnag," as well as the Armenians themselves... a people that a New Yorker got to know once America welcomed the Armenian tired, huddled and poor, and wrote in 1924: "The Turkish massacres in Armenia may have been as much exaggerated as only Armenians can exaggerate."


Ara Sarafian


What happened to Ara Sarafian? At one time, he seemed to wish to concentrate on at least some degree of truth, so uncommon for genocide-obsessed Armenians. He wrote, "It erodes the credibility of Armenian Genocide studies and opens people to ridicule when they repeat these claims." The claims he was referring to? A Blue Book claim!

Then he had his tangle (read here) with Rouben Adalian, who (in his "Tendentious Criticism") almost accused Sarafian of being a sinister Turkish agent. (Just like when the other Armenian Forum editor, Vincent Lima, dared to go off the genocide track in the tiniest way, and Levon Marashlian was all over him, implying that maybe Lima was also some kind of sinister Turkish agent, as well! I guess Vahan Cardashian taught the Armenians well, when he set an example by rabidly attacking Armenian friends like missionary James Barton, the instant they went the slightest bit off-course. These are tactics the Mafia can envy, to keep their members in line.

At any rate, Adalian offered the following desperate defense: "The most commonly used reference of documents on the Armenian Genocide is the Bryce-Toynbee (Blue Book)" Perhaps Mr. Sarafian got so shook up, he had to make amends by trying to validate this awful propagandistic work.



How was the "Blue Book" put together?





Prof. Hikmet Özdemir


Prof. Hikmet Özdemir [Holdwater Note: There are TWO Prof. Hikmet Ozdemirs in Turkey, as I learned when I put up a photograph of the wrong one on this page; the one behind this research is connected with the Turkish Historical Society, or "TTK." The other is connected with the Grand National Assembly, or "TBMM."] made some discoveries in the British Archives regarding Wellington House and Toynbee communications, giving a speech on Jan. 2005 explaining his findings. (Some of these documents had already been known in years past.) I'll touch on a few highlights of the professor's fine research, but mostly it's good to corroborate just how "in the dark" the Wellington House propagandists were, and how extensively the "anti-Turkish" community of the period relied upon one another. (See link at page bottom for excerpts from this speech.)

Let's keep in mind these communications evidently regarded future blue book editions, after 1916's "The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, 1915–1916" work; but the methods of operation are the same. In fact, at page's end, Dr. Barton refers to sources as of Oct. 1915 in his May 1, 1916 letter... no doubt regarding the sources for the April 1916 "Treatment" work.

In a June 23, 1916 letter, Toynbee freely asked Prof. Margoliouth for a look-see of proposed Blue Book materials and point out any "glaring mis-statements of fact," and freely admits, "My knowledge on the greater part on the ground is very shaky and second-hand."


Zoryan Institute


The chief propagandist and "authority" on the "Armenian Question" is on record for admitting how in the dark he was regarding the allegations he was freely making. Not that we needed these words to know, but it's good for Toynbee to have corroborated his ignorance. Particularly since the Zoryan Institute is still passing off statements such as, "Arnold Toynbee, who in 1916 produced the official and most comprehensive British documentation of the Armenian genocide." We can see the worth of that documentation.


Arnold Toynbee


Prof. Hikmet Özdemir tells us Toynbee lived from 1889 to 1975, and when listing his books for son Peter, bypassed his work from the war years. This demonstrates how little he thought of his Blue Book "scholarship." He was quick to term it as "propaganda" as early as his next legitimate book, 1922's “The Western Question in Greece and Turkey." (Pg. 50.) In 1957, Toynbee was quoted again as referring dismissively to his Blue Book work as "war propaganda."

We are told whereas Lord Bryce was an object for hero-worship by Armenians (one named Hagopian said something to the effect that Bryce's name will be remembered as long as an Armenian lives, at the time of Bryce's 1922 death), Toynbee was perhaps never given such reverence.



Upon the Armenians' 50th Anniversary Commemoration in 1965, an Armenian-American lady named Etmekjian wrote to Toynbee (the contents of her March 1, 1966 letter are unknown, as is her follow-up) and the two letters Toynbee wrote in response revealed the historian made no reference to genocide.... although it appeared likely that was the kind of admission the woman was striving for. The second letter ends with the sentiment human beings should admit to wrongdoing, but "nationalism is a hindrance to this, unfortunately." The meat of the first , dated March 16:

"It is true that the British Government's motive in asking Lord Bryce to compile the blue book was propaganda. But Lord Bryce's motive in undertaking it, and mine in working on it for him, was to make the truth known, and the evidence was good; the witnesses were all American missionaries with no political axe to grind. So the Blue Book, together with Lepsius's book, does give a true account.

In 1915 the Russians were invading North-eastern Turkey, and it was reasonable for the Turkish Government to fear that the Armenian minority there might be a 'fifth column'. So it would have been legitimate to deport them, as the U.S. Government deported the Japanese-Americans from the Pacific coast in World War II. But the deportations of the Armenians in 1915 were used — by the Turkish Government, not by the people —
as an opportunity for treating the deportees in ways that were so inhuman that they were bound to cause wholesale mortality, as they did."

If I may take a moment to analyze, it looks like in this period of his life Toynbee is attempting to legitimize the 1915 events in accordance to his propagandistic views. (Although, of course, he is sincere in his beliefs. But why is he so convinced?) In his first paragraph, he admits the purpose of the Blue Book was "propaganda." While Toynbee probably tried to be as accurate as he could (instead of just blindly making things up), if one’s purpose is to distort truth, how could he feel the Blue Book was legitimate?

Particularly if he admits, "the witnesses were all American missionaries with no political axe to grind." Quite the contrary, the prayers of the missionaries directly instructed these religious fanatics to make the Turk as inhuman as possible, breaking the commandment, THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST THY NEIGHBOR; it was their "Godly duty" to vilify the Turks. And far from having no political axe to grind (has Toynbee lost all sense of reality, here?), the relief organizations became the most successful charitable drive in American history, raising an amount the equivalent of one billion dollars today, according to Peter Balakian’s "Burning Tigris" book. (Although I’ve come across another Balakian source where the poet claimed $2.5 billion. Ahh, Armenians and their propensity for numbers.) The most effective way to separate teary-eyed Christian sympathizers from their money was to claim poor, innocent Christians were being monstrously mistreated by heathen infidels.

The fact that Toynbee gives credence to mad-dog religious fanatic Vicar Lepsius’ work illustrates how Toynbee’s deep commitment to his Christian faith has colored his views. We’ll be coming to that.
Here is one indication of Toynbee's Devotion to Faith:

In "10 Questions for God," #6: Will the world end? (bigquestions.com/six/page1.htm), Toynbee provides among six symptoms of a dying society (from his "Study of History"):

(1) sexual 'freedom' wrecks families (kids lack care & relationship education);
(2) people believe the world is ruled by chance, so nothing they do matters;
(3) religion is watered down;
(4) technical skill outpaces moral and spiritual growth;
(5) real creativity is replaced with ‘moral abandon,’ lack of self-control.

The sixth and only "non-religious/spiritual" reason given regarded war becoming an obsession.


With his second paragraph, it looks like we have journeyed back in time to the 1916 "Treatment of Armenians" Toynbee claiming outright there was no Armenian rebellion. The Ottoman government did not act simply out of “fear” the Armenians would rebel; the rebellion is the entire reason why what happened to the Armenians took place. Additionally, if Toynbee admitted his Blue Book evidence derived entirely from American missionaries, how could he then turn around in this second paragraph and imply it was the intention of the government to purposely mistreat the Armenians? (That is, "all" of his evidence stemmed from missionaries. Why should this hearsay constitute factual evidence?) The internal documents are in agreement that the Ottomans did whatever they could to protect the Armenians. Certainly things went wrong, as they are bound to, given the colossal operation, without adequate resources and manpower to implement effectively, and without time to plan properly because a life-and-death war was raging on all fronts against merciless world superpowers. Even a modern, wealthy nation like the USA, without pressures and with all the time in the world to plan, encountered avoidable disasters with their action in Iraq.


Boer War Hero Dixon-Johnson


Why didn’t Toynbee consult C. F. Dixon-Johnson’s 1916 work, "The Armenians"? By courageously daring to go against his nation’s propagandistic demonization policies, Dixon-Johnson had only the desire to tell the truth as his goal. UPA correspondent Henry Wood, who seems to have been a genuine eyewitness (in fact, he claims as much, in an Aug. 1915 account that's also mentioned below), flat out reported that the Armenians not only were in open revolt but were actually in possession of Van and several other important towns. Wood also stated:

"It appears obvious that the Turkish authorities, anxious for the safety of their lines of communication, had no other alternative than to order the removal of their rebellious subjects to some place distant from the seat of hostilities, and their internment there. The enforcement of this absolutely necessary precaution led to further risings on the part of the Armenians. The remaining Moslems were almost defenceless, because the regular garrisons were at the front as well as the greater part of the police and able-bodied men. Already infuriated at the reports of the atrocities committed at Van by the insurgents, in fear for their lives and those of their relatives, they were at last driven by the cumulative effect of these events into panic and retaliation and, as invariably happens in such cases, the innocent suffered with the guilty."

(I just discovered Wood ironically was one of the sources for "The Blue Book"! And he's obviously not as forgiving as the Turks in that passage. How interesting Wood's testimony clearly speaks of the Armenians' rebellion, in a propaganda book where Toynbee unequivocally tells us there was no Armenian rebellion. Mostly, Wood describes the heavy-handed way in which Armenians were rounded up, an account which no doubt has at least some truth. His ending statement is the most damaging in this Aug. 14, 1915 newspaper account, that one of "the basic principles of the Young Turk party" is to "ensure the supremacy of the Turkish race in the Ottoman Empire... absolutely analogous to that which preceded the Armenian massacres under Abd-ul-Hamid. So far, however, the Young Turks have confined themselves to the new system of deportation, dispersion and separation of families." So Wood only suspects attempts at extermination, but clearly reports it hasn't taken place... as late as August, 1915! I suspect the Wood statement in Dixon-Johnson's book came later, after Wood had a chance to see what was really happening.) This Blue Book-Wood account may be [Read Here].

Naturally, Wood is far from the only source turning the claims of the Blue Book on their ear, for example, acclaimed American academician, Prof. John Dewey, wrote:

Few Americans who mourn, and justly, the miseries of the Armenians, are aware that till the rise of nationalistic ambitions, beginning with the 'seventies, the Armenians were the favored portion of the population of Turkey, or that in the Great War, they traitorously turned Turkish cities over to the Russian invader; that they boasted of having raised an army of one hundred and fifty thousand men to fight a civil war, and that they burned at least a hundred Turkish villages and exterminated their population.

When Toynbee was concerned such accounts of Armenian treachery were occasionally alluded to in the no-longer-as-tightly-controlled post-war press, he wrote in a Sept. 26, 1919 memo (F.O. 371/3404/162647, p. 2):

"To lessen the credit of Armenians is to weaken the anti-Turkish action. It was difficult to eradicate the conviction that the Turk is a noble being always in trouble. This situation will revive this conviction and will harm the prestige not only of Armenians, but of Zionists and Arabs as well.

The treatment of Armenians by the Turks is the biggest asset of his Majesty’s Government, to solve the Turkish problem in a radical manner, and to have it accepted by the public."

Suddenly Arnold Toynbee doesn’t strike one as a fellow where truth was his prerogative, and his statement explaining his motivation “to make the truth known” sounds very hollow.
FROM TOYNBEE'S BIOGRAPHER:

"The British use the Ottoman Armenians against the Polish Jews in the propaganda war. In the war, Russia massacres the Polish Jews.

And Germany makes efforts to take the Jewish lobby in the USA to its side with the publications about this massacre.

In such a circumstance, Britain charges the Ottoman Empire, who is the ally of Germany, of conducting a similar massacre, with the aim of disrupting the German propaganda. Britain wants to prevent the Jewish lobby in the USA from sympathizing with Germany by propagating the unfounded rhetoric stating that similar incidents do happen in the Ottoman lands as well.

The reason of publication of the 'Blue Book' is to make propaganda against Germany.

Finally in 1917 the USA involves in the war, siding with the Allied States. Namely, Toynbee does win the propaganda war!"

William H. McNeill, "Arnold Toynbee - A Life" (1989 ). McNeill was professor of history emeritus at the University of Chicago, where he taught for 40 years. He further characterizes the Blue Book as "a disinformation book favoring the Allied states and aiming at shaping the public opinion, which does not go beyond the obsessive task of humiliating the Turks."





Arnold Toynbee, caricatured, his later years


I haven't read Experiences, a 1969 book by Toynbee, but Dadrian's Zoryan Institute points out Toynbee has gone back to his Blue Book roots, using words as "largely successful attempt to exterminate" to describe the Ottoman Turks' actions. Prof. Hikmet Özdemir tells us Dadrian claims to have written to Toynbee, and Toynbee apparently flat out spoke in genocidal terms that no doubt made the Armenian prosecutor giddy with delight. The Turkish professor is maintaining a professional level of respect toward Dadrian, but anyone who knows Dadrian is aware his word can be taken as far as can be thrown, when regarding this genocide obsession. Ozdemir wonders why Dadrian hasn't made this letter public. It's a good question; the Toynbee letter would have provided good ammunition for Dadrian's cause. (Not that it's entirely necessary, because other damning Toynbee statements have been rounded up... in Toynbee's penultimate work, "Acquaintances," as well. Still, every little bit of dirt helps, for the Dadrians of the world.) Perhaps, like Aram Andonian (of Talat Pasha telegrams fame), Dadrian might have "lost" the original.

Prof. Hikmet Özdemir reveals some interesting facts about Toynbee during his "pro-Turk" period. After his first 1912 visit, where he seems to have hated the land, his eyes kept opening during visits in 1921, 1923, 1929, 1948 1962, and finally 1968.

In 1948, his "pal," Turkish leader Ismet Inonu, ordered Toynbee's "Study of History." In a letter dated Nov. 23, 1948 to son Omer, Inonu wrote that he had met with Toynbee, and described the historian as too much of a Christian and somewhat of a religious fanatic. (The Turkish words: "Fazla Hristiyan" and "dinci.") Another friend, "liberal" writer Ahmet Emin Yalman, independently corroborated this Toynbee characteristic in 1952.

Prof. Özdemir informs us that in August 1914 some of Britain's luminaries and historians gathered and declared the first thing they needed to do in order to win the war at hand was to get the USA to join. They planned on opening a propaganda division with this goal in mind. The historians were told their duties would consist of writing books, preparing brochures, lobbying newspapers like "The New York Times," and all the news articles, photographs and the works would henceforth be prepared. This movement would grow to be known as "Wellington House."

Interestingly, a number of the documents in the British Archives are forbidden. Some are deemed never to be opened, while others are time-stamped: to be opened in 2015, 2020 and so forth.



The Turkish professor also tells us after the USA hooked up in the First World War, they learned soon after that they were taken for a ride by British propaganda. With Britain in the role of The Boy Who Cried Wolf, the Americans took their time before coming to the rescue in W.W.II.


Toynbee featured in the cover of the Sept. 1958
issue of Wisdom (Vol. 3, No.27), in apainting
by Yousuf Karsh


In June 15, 1916, Toynbee wrote Boston's Dr. Barton a letter , saying the missionary Rockwell turned down Toynbee's request for names connected with "Mrs. Christie's journal of events at Tarsus," as the information belonged to Barton. Toynbee asks Barton of the same, and additionally requests the missionary to "fill in confidentially any further gaps in my collection."

"It, of course, weakens very much my position in editing these documents if I cannot say in the preface that I am personally in possession of the names of the people and places concerned."

Toynbee badgers Boston's Dr. Rockwell with another letter on June 20th, pretty much saying the same. He adds, "If I have to admit in a certain number of cases that the names are actually unknown to me, this will have a very weakening effect on the body of the evidence."


Boghos Nubar


Toynbee also hobnobs with Boghos Nubar in a June 20 letter (along with Switzerland's Leopold Favre in a separate letter dated June 20), asking the Armenian leader for any "suggestions or corrections." Yes, it's sources like Nubar that helped make Toynbee's work "the official and most comprehensive British documentation," as the Zoryan Institute still tries to sell us. Toynbee lets Nubar know documents will be sent, "the authorship of which is still unknown to me."

"Of course, I would keep any further names you revealed to me as confidential."

Is this the kind of source Ara Sarafian possibly researched in an attempt to validate the Blue Book? Are we supposed to accept the word of Boghos Nubar, or for that matter, Turk-vilifying missionaries? Even if Sarafian pinned down some of these names... and how he could have done so is another matter, since even the principals from the period were having trouble making I.D.s of all the hearsay... what difference does it make? These conflicted sources could have made up any phony name, like "Emile Hilderbrand."

Toynbee was persistent, but for all his efforts to pin down the names, Dr. Barton had already written the young propagandist-historian on May 1, 1916 :

"I very much regret that we are unable to fill in the blanks in the documents that our Committee published in galley form for the press under date of October 14 1915. Most of these documents are not now here; in fact, many of them are not now accessible to us. I doubt if the names of the places would be especially significant."

"In Mrs. Christie's notes, the names have not been furnished to us."





Professor Justin McCarthy says, in his excellent overview of the insidious doings, behind-the-scenes:

The Wellington House brief was simple, the same brief as that of all propagandists. They were to make the enemies look as bad as possible and make their friends, and especially the British themselves, look as good as could be. Their main focus was, naturally, Germany, but much effort was expended against the Turks. Propaganda was not considered to be a gentleman's game. Toynbee himself remarked that he would like to get out of it for that reason. Nevertheless it was something that had to be done and British gentlemen did it. They were probably always ashamed of their work, however, as indicated by the fact that they destroyed all the records of the Propaganda Office immediately after the war.

Of further interest: War-time disinformation and "The Blue Book"

Chart Depicting Wellington House's Reach

Excerpts from Prof. Özdemir's Toynbee Speech

---------------------------------------------------------
© Holdwater
tallarmeniantale.com/toynbee-documents.htm
---------------------------------------------------------

---

War-Time Disinformation And "The Blue Book"

(Some Information regarding Dr. Sonyel is at bottom.)

Arnold Toynbee confessed in a later work, The Western Question in Greece and Turkey (1922, p. 50), that the "Blue Book" was a piece of war propaganda.

"The Great War and the Tragedy of Anatolia: Turks and Armenians in the Maelstrom of Major Powers"

by Selahi Sonyel
War-time disinformation and "The Blue Book"

The publication, in 1916, of the British war-time disinformation 'report' under the title . .
THE TREATMENT OF ARMENIANS IN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE, 1915-1916, which came to be known as "The Blue Book", was masterminded by Arnold Toynbee, a member of the Masterman propaganda bureau in London, on the instigation of Viscount James Bryce. Lord Bryce had been inciting the Armenian militants to rebellion since the publication of his book entitled TRANSCAUCASIA AND ARARAT in 1877, in which he remarked: "Why ...do the Armenians not rise in rebellion...as their forefathers did against the Seleucids and the Persians?" (Bryce, p.344).

Following the revolt of Ottoman Armenians in 1914 - 1915, on the instigation by the Allies (mainly by Russia, France and Britain), in order to dismember the Ottoman state and the eruption of a civil war between the Armenians and the Turks, the British Intelligence and Information Services, some political and military advisers and Armenophile enthusiasts such as Lord Bryce, Arnold Toynbee, Aneurin Williams, and others, urged the British government to publicise the Turco-Armenian incidents such as "Armenian massacres." Internally, it was hoped that this would arouse, among the British public, more interest in "the little allies of the Entente" - the Armenians — as David Lloyd George described them, and hatred towards the Turks. Externally, it would divert international attention from the atrocious persecution of the Jews by Britain's ally, Russia, which had intensified during the war. It would also stimulate the neutral countries with pro-Entente tendencies, such as the USA, Greece and Hashemite Arabs, to join the fray.

Harold D. Laswell, in his well-known book entitled PROPAGANDA TECHNIQUES IN THE WORLD WAR, published in New York in 1927, observes that the Allies indulged in extensive propaganda (disinformation) during the First World War in order to establish friendly relations with neutral states, to convince those states of the justice of their war aims and to procure their support. The Allies knew that the best way to draw the neutrals to their side was by portraying their enemies as "inhuman creatures". (Laswell, pp.62, 66, 72, and 195-197). That is exactly what "The Blue Book" aimed to do.

The task of collecting the materials, mainly from Armenian sources, and of writing the "report", was undertaken by the well-known Turcophobe Viscount Bryce, and by Arnold Toynbee. On how the propaganda material was collected and masterfully utilised, see Arthur Ponsonby FALSEHOOD IN WARTIME, New York, 1917, and Michael Sanderson and Philip M. Taylor, BRITISH PROPAGANDA DURING THE FIRST WORLD WAR, 1914 - 1918, London, 1983.

Armenian researcher Akaby Nassibian observes that Aneurin Williams, his associates, and the British Foreign Office, were anxious to have the "report" published in order to stimulate the Allies' war effort. (Nassibian, BRITAIN AND THE ARMENIAN QUESTION, London, 1984.) "The Blue Book" turned out to be one of the most successful war-time propaganda exercises of the British government. It used it in inculcating hatred towards, and denigrating, its enemies — the Turks — at the time, before world opinion, particularly the Islamic world, in promises, and in effecting the major coup of finally winning over the wavering pro-Entente neutrals, in particular the USA.

Most of the material used in "The Blue Book" and in other similar publications was supplied to Lord Bryce by the U.S. Ambassador in Istanbul, Henry Morgenthau, who, not knowing Turkish, relied heavily on his Armenian aides. (See Heath W. Lowry, THE STORY BEHIND AMBASSADOR MORGENTHAU'S STORY, Istanbul, 1990). Bryce passed on the information to Toynbee, "the distinguished historian and member of Wellington House, who", according to Sanders and Taylor, "became something of a specialist in atrocity propaganda". (Sanders and Taylor, op.cit., p.145).

There is no doubt that "The Blue Book" was the result of collecting together various "documents" without having thoroughly checked their accuracy, and gathered mainly from Armenian sources, or from people sympathetic to the Armenians, i.e. from second or third-hand sources, mostly with the help of Morgenthau. It was issued as an official publication in order to give it more authenticity and credibility.

The work was completed in a short time, and definitely in less than a year. How authentic and reliable a work of "historical scholarship" it is, scholars themselves must judge. Toynbee himself, at first, considered it as "the biggest asset of His Majesty's Government to solve the Turkish problem in a radical manner, and to have it accepted by the public". (See Public Record Office, Foreign Office document FO 371/3404/162647, p.2). Much later Toynbee disclosed that the British government had published "The Blue Book" for a special purpose, of which he was unaware at the time. He said that the Russian armies, when retreating across the Polish-Lithuanian frontier in the spring of 1915, had committed many barbarities against the Jews there, and the advancing German armies had tried to exploit them. The British government had been seriously perturbed. In February 1916 THE NEW YORK AMERICAN had advised all American people to demand that "Christian England and Christian France restrain the savagery of their barbarous allies". (Toynbee, ACQUAINTANCES, pp.149 - 152, THE NEW YORK AMERICAN, 2.2.1916). Toynbee believed that the British government was worried lest the American Jewry retaliate against the Allies by throwing its weight against Britain in the debate then going on in the USA. Therefore the Turco-American incidents in Anatolia had provided the British government with "counter-propaganda" material against the Central powers. (Toynbee, ibid., pp.149 - 152).

Both Henry Herbert Asquith and Stanley Baldwin, in their joint memorial presented in 1924 to the then Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald, stated in no uncertain terms that "The Blue Book" was "widely used for Allied propaganda in 1916-17, and had an important influence upon American opinion and the ultimate decision of President Woodrow Wilson to enter the war". (See Mosa Anderson, NOEL BUXTON: A LIFE, London, 1952, pp.81 and 110; see also Bodleian Library, Toynbee Papers, box on Armenian Memorial", 26.9.1924).

Thus, "The Blue Book", as "masterpiece" of British wartime propaganda, had a devastating effect. Its wicked influence is still extant as the book is being abused by Armenian activists in perpetuating their hatred towards the Turks, and by certain naïve scholars. Its success lay in the fact that it was based on "atrocity" stories. British propaganda was geared towards such stories, real, exaggerated or even fabricated. (See Lucy Masterman, C.F.G.MASTERMAN, 1939, p.298); because disinformers could flog them to journalists and correspondents, who would then flash them under banner headlines in their journals. (see also Sidney Whitman, TURKISH MEMORIES, London 1914, pp.120-121). Arthur Ponsonby explains that "the injection of the poison of hatred into men's minds by means of falsehood is a greater evil in wartime than the actual loss of life, the defilement of the human soul is worse than the destruction of the human body". (Ponsonby, op.cit., p.18).

One of the most notorious "atrocity stories" of the entire war was the so-called "corpse-conversation factory", where the Germans were accused of boiling down bodies to make soap. The story was completely fabricated — it was finally exposed in 1925 when it was discussed in the House of Commons. (HANSARD, 5th Session, vol.188, 24.1.1925, pp.147-148). Most of the wartime "atrocity stories" were fabricated, or exaggerated tremendously; so was the myth of the "deliberate extermination of the Ottoman Armenians in 1915."

James Morgan Read observes: "Lying is an act of conscious deception. Much of British atrocity propaganda was unconscious deception built upon erroneous reports and impressions". (ATROCITY PROPAGANDA, 1914 - 19, Yale, 1941, p.187). It was the British government itself which, between 1914 and 1918 had demonstrated to the world the enormous power of propaganda, (Sanders and Taylor, p.265) a legacy which later propagandists followed suit.

What a great article by Professor Selahi Sonyel... what invaluable and impartial Western sources. (If a Western source vindicates Turks, you can be sure they are impartial... since Westerners have grown up with a negative image of Turks, and have no reason to be in love with Turks.) Many I have never heard of.

Professor Selahi Sonyel was selected as the Turkish scholar to be examined by Gwynne Dyer, when he looked at both sides of the genocide coin in Turkish 'Falsifiers' and Armenian 'Deceivers'. If Dyer came up with any falsification by Sonyel, I couldn't see it.... his main gripe seemed to have been summarized in the following lines: "Sonyel's extreme partisan stance is more obtrusive in his use of language than of facts. His conclusion, though offensively phrased, is partly defensible at least in essence..." Then he turns his attention to the Armenians. You can read his work here.


'The British have to apologize'
The Blue Book (edited)
Ret. Ambassador (Sukru) Elekdag: UK should apologize to Turkey about Armenian genocide claims


* Elekdag says Armenian genocide claims stemmed from the 'Blue Book,' published by the British in 1916, based on groundless and false documents. 'No other publication damaged our country to date as much as this book did'

* 'Accusing Turkey of carrying out genocide against the Armenians, this book encouraged terrorism and led to the death of numerous innocent people'

* 'It's a crime against humanity and a murder to poison the opinions of nations, turn them into foes and pave the way for hatred, malice and revenge to pass on to generations. In this respect, we expect the British Parliament and government to declare that the Blue Book is groundless and apologize to Turkey'

* 'The Turkish Parliament should deal with this case and pursue it to enable the British Parliament to declare the book groundless. Our government should present an official request to Britain'

* 'American historian professor Justin McCarthy found an incredible document in British archives a short while ago. This document put forth that the Armenian genocide claim was a great lie made up by the British Intelligence Organization's "War Propaganda Secret Bureau" based on groundless documents prepared during World War I'

* 'The Ottoman government never had a decision, plan or will to carry out systematic genocide against the Armenian nation or annihilate them'

--------------

Ayla Ganioglu
Turkish Daily News, 27 April 2003

The claim that the Armenians were subjected to genocide in 1915, in the last days of the Ottoman Empire, came to the agenda once again on April 24, which is marked in the West as "the anniversary of Armenian genocide."

The Armenian diaspora's efforts to enable those western parliaments to pass decisions condemning the genocide have never ended. The U.S. comes first among these countries. Retired Ambassador, Republican People's Party (CHP) Istanbul deputy and parliamentary foreign affairs committee member Sukru Elekdag told the TDN that the Russian, Canadian, Greek, Belgian, Italian Parliaments, European Council Parliamentarians' Assembly and the EU European Parliament passed resolutions recognizing Armenian genocide claims one after another in recent years. The legislative bodies of Argentina and Lebanon also took similar decisions. Armenian terrorist organization ASALA ceased its terrorist actions in 1984 after it massacred 42 Turks including 36 diplomats and their families. It killed five ambassadors, four consul generals and one military attache. Elekdag thinks that the terror incidents were the first phase of Armenian radicals' three-staged plan. He stresses that the Armenian problem was brought to the agenda with the terror incidents, while a strategy aiming to enable the world to recognize the Armenian genocide is being followed at the second stage. Elekdag says the Armenians will demand high compensation from Turkey in the third stage, which would in turn constitute the legal basis for Armenia's demands for land. Elekdag responded to TDN's questions as follows:

TDN: What do you think about the claims that the Armenians were subjected to genocide in the last period of the Ottoman Empire when you look at the issue objectively?

Elekdag: This incident, which has tried to be recognized as "genocide," is not related with this concept since the Ottoman government never had a decision, plan or will to carry out systematic genocide against the Armenian nation or annihilate them. It's not because of their ethnic roots or religious beliefs that certain parts of the Armenian nation was forced to migrate. The reasons behind the fact that the Armenians were subjected to "relocation" can be listed as follows: 1-They cooperated with the Russians who invaded Ottoman lands during the war, 2-They helped the enemy by forming voluntary troops, 3-They rebelled from time to time, 4-They arranged armed attacks against villages of the Muslim population, 5-They claimed the lives of soldiers defending the country on the war front. All these were experienced in a period when the Ottoman state was in a war of life or death. Relocation was a legitimate and legally right precaution in the framework of the right to protect the presence of the state in that period as the Armenians betrayed the state by cooperating with the enemy and arranged large-scale armed attacks which endangered the country's defense.

TDN: It's claimed that the Armenian incurred losses of lives during relocation...

Elekdag: It's true that the Armenians incurred losses during clashes and "relocation" in eastern Anatolia. However, we should not forget that the Armenian gangs, which revolted with the start of war in eastern Anatolia, massacred the Turkish and Muslim population as well. The feelings of hatred and revenge, which rose to a peak between the communities, and the government's failure to provide security in the war environment, were influential in the relocation. This situation led to serious flaws in the transport of convoys during relocation, which in turn hurt the Armenians. Lack of vehicles, fuel, food and medicine, bad weather conditions and epidemics such as typhus created severe harm to the Turks as well as the Armenians. In the light of these facts, it's unveiled that the claims that the Armenians were subjected to genocide are inaccurate.

TDN: What's the situation in legal terms?

Elekdag: The genocide concept is defined in the "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide", which went into effect in 1951: "Genocide is the act committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group." However, it's obvious that the Ottoman government never had such a plan to destroy the Armenians in whole or in part. Despite all their efforts in the past 88 years, the Armenians could never put forth a valid document proving such a will or plan. As a matter of fact, famous scientist and historian Bernard Lewis said in his article published in Le Monde in 1993: There's no valid proof that the Ottoman government had a plan aiming mass destruction against the Armenian nation. The Turks had legitimate reasons to resort to relocation since the Armenians were fighting against the Turks in alliance with Russia which invaded Ottoman lands. These facts refute the claims that the Armenians were subjected to genocide. The allied forces, which invaded the Ottoman Empire after the war, wanted to try the ruling Unity and Progress Party administrators because of the massacre against the Armenians but failed to find any documents to bring an accusation against the Malta exiles.

TDN: How did this event take place?

Elekdag: The British invasion administration in Istanbul arrested 144 Turks including ministers, politicians, governors and high-ranking officials and bureaucrats on allegations of massacre and various crimes depending on the reports of Armenian Patriarchate and exiled them to Malta. However, it's understood thereafter that these reports were just a propaganda tool and that they could not be used as evidence in the court. Upon this development, the British invasion administration in Istanbul inspected all state archives of the Ottoman Empire and carried out intense interrogations. Despite this, they could not find a single piece of evidence proving the massacre claims. The British applied to the American government in despair. America did not fight against the Ottoman Empire during World War I, thus sustaining its relations. The American diplomats and consulate officials in Turkey carefully followed the Armenian relocation and provided humanitarian aid to these relocated Armenians. There must have been records in the American archives if there had been a planned mass massacre against the Armenians. However, no document accusing the Turks of committing a massacre against the Armenians could be found in these archives. In this case, those exiled to Malta were acquitted and released, which in turn proved that the Armenian genocide claims were groundless.

TDN: How were claims of genocide kept on the agenda despite all these facts?

Elekdag: A short while ago, U.S. historian professor Justin McCarthy, found a document in the British archives. The document proves that the claims of Armenian genocide were made up of lies based on documents prepared during World War I, by the "War Propaganda Secret Bureau" under the British Intelligence Agency. This Propaganda Bureau had worked at Wellington House until the end of the war. When the war ended the British government had all documents burned and destroyed. However, the document found by McCarthy survived and was left in an archive box where nobody got hold of it. The Secret Propaganda Bureau was administered by Lord Bryce. The one who prepared the baseless documents for publishing was historian Arnold Toynbee who later became world famous.

----- False documents by the British and the Blue Book-----


TDN: What could be the reasons behind Britain preparing false documents?

Elekdag: The reason for Britain having these artificial documents prepared was to exploit the compassionate feelings of the American public towards Armenians and thus enable the U.S. to enter the war as quickly as possible. Another aim was to create grounds for an Armenian state to be established under the rule of Britain and France in Eastern Anotolia, following the expected fall of the Ottoman Empire. By taking the Armenians on their side, Britain and France were calculating to hinder Russia's strategy of reaching the Mediterranean by invading Ottoman lands. The artificial documents that I referred to earlier were compiled in a thick book titled "Treatment of Armenians during the Ottoman Empire, 1915-1916" published by the British Government in 1916 with the approval of the House of Commons and distributed worldwide. This publication, also known as "The Blue Book," introduces Turks to the world as people who are inhuman, open to all evil, bloodthirsty and whose feelings of dignity, conscience and mercy have been blunted.

TDN: What are the claims in "The Blue Book?"

Elekdag: The Blue Book puts forward that "relocation" is an ethnic destruction plan designed by the Ottoman government. It includes false reports and documents mentioning brutality, mass massacre and cruelty applied to Armenians under this plan. It is certain that The Blue Book had a strong effect on the war. Just so, with reference to the statements by the then British ministers, it is a fixed fact that The Blue Book was an initial factor in President Wilson's decision for America to enter the war. This abhorred book published in 1916 forms the bases of the Armenian genocide claims. No other publication in the history of the Turkish Republic has produced this much harm. Assuming The Blue Book reflecting the facts, tens of thousands of books and articles written on the Armenian genocide since 1916 enabled the slander and blackening campaign to continue against Turks. Despite its falsity being revealed, the Armenian propaganda institutions republished The Blue Book in England at the end of 2000 and introduced it to the media at a meeting where members of the House of Lords were also present. Remzi Gur, a businessman who felt uneasy of the situation, organized a dinner conference for 250 people hosted by Lord Ahmed in the premises of the British House of Lords building with the approval of our London Consulate. I myself and professor Nevzat Yalcintas (now a member of the Justice and Development Party), a dear friend of mine, attended this meeting where many members of the House of Lords and House of Commons together with representatives of the media were present and addressed the visitors.

TDN: What was your speech about?

Elekdag: I stated that it was now openly revealed that The Blue Book consist of false documents and in spite of this the British media still continuously referred to this book to accuse Turkey of genocide. Furthermore, I reminded that during the 1920 British invasion of Istanbul the British deported Turks whom they accused of Armenian genocide to Malta and upon no evidence, the defendants were released. I asked them, "The Blue Book was published in 1916. Why wasn't it referred to, to convict the people exiled to Malta?"

----- 'The British have to apologize' -----

TDN: Why do you think they didn't refer to the Blue Book? Even though it was based on false documents wasn't it possible in those times for them to use it?

Elekdag: The Blue Book couldn't have been used because it consisted of false and fabricated documents. Because according to the opinion of the prosecutor of the British Kingdom, the claims and documents in the Blue Book were too baseless and untrue to be accepted as evidence in the British Court. Today, without giving any to discussions it has been proved that there had been a slander and humiliation campaign organized against Turks 85 years ago during the war and with this aim the Blue Book -- full of false documents -- had been published. Despite this, today the British media still refers to this book to accuse Turkey of genocide. The thesis, research and books written on the history of that period still takes quotes from the Blue Book.

Accusing Turkey of genocide, this book encouraged terror at one stage and caused the death of many innocent people. It still creates enemies among people and destroys peace and confidence. It is a crime of humanity and murder to poison opinions of nations and make enemies of them, causing hatred and revenge that will continue for generations. For this reason we expect the British Parliament and the government to declare the baselessness of the Blue Book and to apologize to Turkey. I proposed this in that meeting.

During World War I, the British intelligence service published a book on Germans boiling their enemies to make soap, depending on the statements of dozens of witnesses and secretly taken photos, and made the world believe that this was the truth. When after the war it was revealed that these were lies, the British parliament accepted the truth in a statement they made in 1936 and apologized to Germany.

The Turkish Parliament should put forward this case and follow up the issue regarding the baselessness of the Blue Book published with the approval of the British parliament and its declaration. Our government should make official demands to Britain regarding the issue. A statement by the British parliament or the government making a statement on the issue will be a development to refute claims of Armenian genocide.

Ankara --- TDN Parliament Bureau
Thanks to turkisharmenians.cjb.net

Holdwater: Say, that's pretty interesting that the British apologized to the Germans, regarding their false Blue Book directed against the Germans. Will the British similarly apologize to the Turks? I'm not holding my breath... although that would be the gentlemanly thing to do, given the terrible harm this deceitful book has produced... and is still continuing to produce.

What WAS that important document Professor Justin McCarthy found in the British archives? I would love to know.

Ex-Ambassador to America Sukru Elekdag has done a great job over the years refuting the Falsified Genocide, sometimes entirely on his lonesome. A study by him refuting Turkish Turncoat Halil Berktay may be found here, and Dr. Dennis Papazian chose to do battle with an Elekdag letter that has been rebutted here.

---

© Holdwater
tallarmeniantale.com/blue-book.htm

---