0070) General Mayewski Examines Armenian Events, Politically

General Mayewski was the Russian Consul General in Bitlis and Van for five years. In the following report, he gives an excellent analysis of the moves that took place for years, leading to the actions of the Armenians and others.

The following is from the book, "Ermeni Meselesenin Siyasi Tarihcesi" [The Political History of the Armenian Problem] (1877-1914). The 2001 publication from Ankara documents how the person in charge of the Ottoman Archives from those early years, Munir Surreya Bey, kept a record of important communications relating to the history of events leading to the Armenian "Genocide." Most of the book provides photocopies of the actual documents.

Unfortunately, the words attributed to the Russian general were in Turkish, and the following is an unofficial translation; that is, the translation is very literal, but far from polished... just providing the goods in a way that gets the meaning across.

I'm not happy there is no date and other details as to the source, but from the dates described, it must have been written after 1899.

I subsequently discovered Dr. Vahakn Dadrian has taken exception to the validity of the source, and we'll be examining this rebuttal at page bottom.





Europe mainly acted as Turkey's protector until the end of 1870. Because Turkey was useful as a rival/counterforce to Russia. Europe began to form different Christian governments in the Balkans once Russian influence began to make itself felt.

The war of 1877-78 was an attempt by Europe to weaken Russia but, in fact, it was Turkey that was ultimately weakened. Europe looked the other way when the Bulgarian prince came upon the scene with the aid of Russia. For Europe's balance, however, it was important for the borders to remain the same and for Turkey to remain strong. The Bulgars were never meant to make their presence felt politically, but then Europe noticed Bulgaria coming across as a vanguard of Russia. In 1890, Europe's attitude toward Turkey suddenly changed; instead of protecting Ottoman soil, the new plan set out to eradicate the Ottoman Empire. A lot of greater European statesmen began crying that Turkey was an embarrassment to the continent in the 19th Century.

The project of dividing Turkish land was completed by 1895, and the Sublime Porte found itself deprived of Europe's protection.

Europe was Turkey's friend as long as Turkey was able to stand up to Russia. Once Turkey's might diminished and Europe lost interest in warring with Russia, Europe's friendship with Turkey came to an end.

For a century, Russia became the protector of Eastern Christians. It was easy to create incidents against Turkey for the purpose of coming across as defending the rights of the Christians. This way, Russia could draw her sword and find the perfect excuse to start yet another Russo-Turkish war. Western diplomats would no longer make an effort to intervene.




If such internal struggles kept continuing with Turkey, the road would become clear for European intervention.

From 1894 on, many events began to contribute to Turkey's restlessness. If not for European support, the Armenian Question would never have been able to come into existence. Ten provinces of Asian Turkey became bloodied because of this question.

When the Russians kept quiet and when the Armenians became weakened, Europe created a new problem for Turkey. The result was the Turkish-Greek war. The sequel was the Macedonian Question. For ten years, these events could be traced, and the end result of these problems is beginning to near.

In this way, the Armenian problem became the first curtain of the European-sponsored drama. The beginning is what made the East restless for a century.

Europe recognizes the hardship of Russia to expand into Ottoman Asian territory via the creation of an Armenian government among the different millets of the Southern Caucasus. For such a plan to become a reality would be difficult (as the Anatolian populace in the East outnumbers the Armenians by far.)

Once Europe believed it would be successful, it bought the Armenians and by taking their side, created the events of 1895 and 1896. England first came up with the Armenian Question. The other European governments that lent their applause to the Armenian Question were aware there would be no solution to this question. Because they did not like the Armenian Committee, they did not consider the harm that could befall the Armenians, once the pot was stirred. After the Armenians unknowingly fulfilled their duty, Europe washed its hands of them. Nobody got involved with the Armenians in 1898 and 1899. Once thrown in a corner like this, the Armenians were in a far worse situation than they were in 1894. Even in the Press did the Armenian Question become an invisible subject. Only once in a while can talks about the Armenians not being forgotten can be read in the press. Such conferences can be heard in Paris, Geneva, Brussels, Milan and Budapest. Not long ago, many friends of Armenians got together in Berlin. The speakers bring to light what the Armenians have suffered, and how Europe and Russia have abandoned them as a result. Despite the events, the Armenians have been ejected from the program of the diplomats.

In addition, talks of famous politicians in France such as (Jores), Clemenceau, Anatole France and (Presanse), and the appearance of Italy to get involved, could bring new life to the Armenian Question.

...The fact that the Armenians have truly come upon hard times is ignored by Europe. Should the Armenians be affected by new talks and rebel, and once again suffer as they have in the past, the faces of the new speakers couldn't blush in the slightest.

Vahakn Dadrian Objects

What the Russian general has written falls perfectly in line with the events in question, based on many independent sources; it's a known fact that the "Sick Man of Europe" was targeted as prey for many years, by its Imperialistic enemies. The fact that the Armenians were used as pawns to further weaken the weakened Ottoman Empire... so that the European powers could further move in and impose their conditions and capitulations... is historical fact. If General Mayewski wrote about such conclusions at the time, he was a very astute man.

This page is a later addition to TAT, and I was already familiar with General Mayewski from a page on this site, "Massacres by Armenians in the Late 19th Century, as told by a Russian." I wasn't too crazy about the translation on this page either, but the purpose of this site is to mainly feature evidence from non-Turkish sources... and General Mayewski certainly comes across as a powerful source.

However, I just learned the Zoryan Institute has come down hard on General Mayewski (along with the diary of Lt.-Col. Twerdokhlebof, also featured on another TAT page). Since the idea here is not to hide anything, we are obliged to see what they had to say.

Unfortunately, the one who is doing the squawking is Vahakn Dadrian, who is more prosecutor than professor, and one who has demonstrated a lack of ethics in presenting only one side of the story and distorting the rest.

Whenever the Armenian militia is presented with evidence that damns their beloved genocide, they are duty-bound to discredit the evidence as much as they can... to the tune of the "Armenian AND? Anthem."

However, I'm not happy with the "loose strings" of the Mayewski reports, so I was interested in what Dr. Dadrian had to say. And... who knows... just because the man has been a professional deceiver in the past, does not mean he may not be on to something here.

Here is the pertinent part of the Zoryan report attempting to discredit Mayewski:

...in an article titled, “The Perversion by Turkish Sources of Russian General Mayewski’s Report on the Turko-Armenian Conflict,” (Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies vol. 5 (1990-1991): 139-152), Prof. Vahakn Dadrian, the Zoryan Institute’s Director of Genocide Research, dissected the Turkish publications dealing with Mayewski’s tract to conclude that they are faulty and are in part based on doctored, rather than authentic, Mayewski material. By checking Turkish, Armenian and French sources, as well as official German documents, Dr. Dadrian established the fact that the Turks, through Major Mehmet Sadik, an intelligence officer in the General Staff’s Department II, first translated the Russian tract into Ottoman Turkish. Using the latter as a basis, the Turks then translated it into French for world-wide distribution. But a careful examination of this French and, therefore, Turkish version with the Russian original by German Ottomanist Prof. Martin Hartmann, revealed that there are significant discrepancies between the original, on the one hand, and the Turkish and French translations, on the other, including omissions. Moreover, as Professor Hartmann ascertained, “The French version contains items not found in the Russian.” In other words, as Professor Dadrian concludes, “The Russian General has been credited with statements he did not make in his report.” Professor Hartmann felt constrained to inform the German Foreign Office, which had commissioned him for this task of checking the translations, that “The portions extracted from the Russian text and taken out of context prove nothing; they may possibly include falsifications. The French text is worthless (wertlos).” In his summary conclusion, Prof. Hartmann declares: “The aim of the material obviously is to place the blame on the Christians... This is an instrument of agitation... On the whole one gains the impression that one is dealing with a clumsy effort to excuse the conduct of the Turkish government in the great atrocities of 1895-6 through the mouth of a Russian.”

Okay, let's see now... Mayewski's original obviously exists.

That is all we need to find out exactly what he said. That's all I want to know.

"Significant Discrepancies"?

"“The portions extracted from the Russian text ... may possibly include falsifications"?

Brother.

Even if the Turkish translator was not entirely faithful and distorted the meaning of some of the words... the significance of which would be a subjective determination... how much different could the thrust of the work actually be?

In their wild quest to cast doubt on anything that runs contrary to the Armenians' version of events, is Dr. Dadrian seriously suggesting that General Mayewski wrote papers with an entirely different context?

It seems pretty clear the entire POINT that Mayewski was making is that the massacres... of 1894-95, at least (which could well be applied to the Armenian "Genodice" of 1915-16, since the very same political motivations were in force stronger than ever)... was blown way out of proportion.

This desperate "scholarly finding" reminds me of Dennis Papazian's "Mistaken Credulity"... where the Armenian professor would pathetically attempt to point to a few weeds to give the impression the entire forest needed to be burned down.

The Zoryan report goes on to state:

"The republication of Mayewski’s dubious material and its promotion in the media through Zaman deliberately masks the story of a 19th century event to misrepresent it as part of the World War I Armenian Genocide in order to deny that genocide. The recent reprinting and distribution of Kamuran Gürün’s notorious book, The Armenian File, a classic rendering of the traditional Turkish state position of denial, is yet another example."

So why is The Armenian File "notorious"? Because the book cited mainly Western sources and turned the Armenian "Genocide" on its ear?

The Zoryan Institute is yet another Armenian organization with plenty of dollars in its budget, and whose sole purpose is to affirm the Armenians' raison d'etre through any means possible. In typical fashion, any claims made are permissible... regardless of whether they have any bearing on the truth.

I would like to see the writings of General Mayewski to be translated by an entirely neutral party. Then we will see just how "falsified" his message really was.

---

© Holdwater
tallarmeniantale.com/mayewski.htm

---