1501) New Research: U.S. Army Intelligence Officer Notes Armenian Massacres Of Turks

Oppose H. Res. 106
New Research: U.S. Army Intelligence Officer Notes Armenian Massacres Of Turks

Col. Charles Furlong Criticizes The U.S. Government For Willfully Ignoring Turkish Losses At The Hands Of The Armenians

Charles W. Furlong: U.S. Army Intelligence Officer 1917-1919. U.S. Delegate To The Paris Peace Conference
• Charles W. Furlong was one of the great American explorers of distant lands and observers of foreign peoples. During WWI as a U.S. Army intelligence officer he spent significant time in the eastern Ottoman Empire. President Woodrow Wilson found his contributions so valuable that he appointed him to the U.S. Delegation to the Paris Peace Conference.

Furlong Notes Massacres Of Turks By Armenians
• In a March 23, 1920 letter to President Wilson, Furlong criticizes America's susceptibility to pro-Armenian propaganda, he writes: "We hear much, both truth and gross exaggeration of Turkish massacre of Armenians, but little or nothing of the Armenian massacres of Turks.

• In the same letter, Furlong provides evidence that some alleged massacres of Armenians were based on poor or politically motivated reporting: "The recent so-called Marash massacres [of Armenians] have not been substantiated, in fact, in the minds of many who are familiar with the situation, there is a grave question whether it was not the Turk who suffered at the hands of the Armenian and French armed contingents which were known to be occupying that city and vicinity."

• In a July 25, 1921 speech, Furlong declared, "I know of no country today that is having more unjust propaganda put over against it [than Turkey]. Turkey has its faults, but half truths are worse than none. We hear half the truth when we hear of the massacres of Armenians in Turkey; we'll have the other half when we hear of the massacres of Turks by Armenians and Greeks."

Furlongs's Worries Are Relevant Today
• In his March 23, 1920 letter to President Wilson, Furlong worried that the U.S.' overt favoritism toward Christian pleas would harm our ability to carry out policy in the Muslim world. Furlong said, "[OJur opportunity to gain the esteem and respect of the Moslem world ... will depend much on whether America hears Turkey's untrammeled voice and evidence which she has never succeeded in placing before the Court of Nations." A right decision on the treatment of Turkey, Furlong continued, "will bind closer ... the eastern and western world ...," while a wrong decision, Furlong warned, "will be a calamity and may again set aflame an infinitely greater fire than that which seems to be smothered."


New Research: Prejudicial U.S. Reporting On The Ottoman Empire Was The Work Of Armenians

U.S. Archives Include Reports Expressing Doubt About The Objectivity Of Information Provided By Armenians In The Employ Of The U.S.

Consul General Suspects Prejudice
• On February 2,1920, W. Stanley Hollis, the U.S. Consul General in Beirut and then London, wrote to the Secretary of State voicing extreme doubt on the quality of the reporting produced by the U.S. Embassy in Istanbul. He accused the Embassy of disregarding his reports and falling under the sway of the Embassy's Armenian translator, Mr. Arshag Schmavonian. Hollis wrote:

"Although in all of my dispatches, and in my letters to the Embassy, I confined myself to statements of actual fact ... such reports of facts and actual occurrences were not well received by the Embassy. ... [T]he attitude of the Embassy at [Istanbul] towards a Consular Officer's reports was largely influence by the opinions of its Armenian Dragoman, Mr. Schmavonian..."

• Mr. Schmavonian was earlier in the employ of U.S. Ambassador Morgenthau, who admitted that Schmavonian and other Armenian translators were given great liberties to modify his reports.

Evidence Against Turks Came Primarily From Armenians
• The Preliminary Peace Conference (Paris, 1919) included a 'Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War and on Enforcement of Penalties.' Not surprisingly, the U.S., one of war's victors, entirely blamed the vanquished: Germany and the Ottoman Empire. A subcommission was appointed to (a) establish whether criminal acts were committed during the war and (b) prepare prosecutions.

• Among the charges leveled by the subcommission, which was chaired by U.S. Secretary of State Lansing, was "Massacres of Armenians by the Turks." The report presented to the conference by the commission lists as the primary source of this accusation a "Memorandum of the Armenian Patriarchate of [Istanbul] addressed to the Ambassadors of France and Great Britain." The next source listed is an "Armenian Memorandum addressed to the Conference." Then a "Report on the American Relief Committee in favor of the Armenians and the Syrians."

> The Subcommittee described Armenian losses as "more than 200,000." This is far short of the inflammatory 1.5 million figure used by H. Res. 106.

> The report contains no accusation that the Ottoman government contravened the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions, while it did accuse Germany, Austria, Hungary and Bulgaria of the same.

New Research: 1920's Head Of The Armenia America Society Put Armenian Wartime Losses At approx. 500,000

President Wilson's Own Emissary To The Paris Peace Conference Found That Two-Thirds Of The Ottoman Armenians Survived The War

George Montgomery: U.S. Emissary And Armenia America Society Member
• George Montgomery was born in Marash in the Ottoman Empire in 1870 to missionary parents. He traveled extensively in the region and, after pursuing doctoral studies at Harvard, accompanied the King-Crane Commission on Syria and Palestine. The U.S. government appointed him as an expert to the American Commission to Negotiate Peace in Paris in 1919. Among the issues to be considered was the partition of the Ottoman Empire, including the potential establishment of an Armenian state, which Montgomery supported.

> Montgomery also was a member of the America Armenia Society. Among his papers is a letter from the President of the Armenian National Delegation to the Paris Peace Conference, Boghos Nubar, lauding him for his commitment to the Armenian cause.

Montgomery's Detailed Pre- And Post-War Population Estimates Yield Armenian Losses Far Fewer Than Alleged In H. Res. 106

• H. Res. 106 repeats the oft-quoted figure of 1.5 million Armenian losses, which lacks rational historic justification. Montgomery was an expert in the region. He was born there and had lived there. He was raised in a missionary family whose ambition was to minister to the Armenians.

• Montgomery's report, "The Non-Arab Portion of the Ottoman Empire," estimates the Armenians' prewar population in Ottoman lands at 1.6 million. He added, "It is safe to say that the figures do not err on the side of exaggeration as to numbers of Armenians."

• In the same report Montgomery tallies the post-war Armenian population and finds 1.104 million Armenians either remaining in Ottoman territory or living as refugees in neighboring states.

• From here the math is simple: According to the U.S.' own representative to the Paris Peace Conference, Armenian wartime losses were no more than 500,000.

> H. Res. 106 uses a puffed up figure that has been contrived to elicit emotion not historical understanding. Unfortunately, the rest of H. Res. 106 is equally loose with the facts.


Landmark Decision: World Court Rules That Genocide Requires Proof Of Specific Intent

In First Ever Case Against A Sovereign State For Genocide, The International Court Of Justice Rules That Intent To Commit Genocide Must Clearly Be Established By Facts And May Not Be Assumed Merely From Deaths

Bosnia V. Serbia Is The First Case Of Its Kind
• According to the UN Genocide Convention, to which the US is a party, the International Court of Justice at the Hague (ICJ) is the sole competent tribunal to hear accusations of State responsibility for the crime of genocide. On February 26, the ICJ issued its first ruling in 60 years in such a case: Bosnia v. Serbia.

• Whether the accused possessed the requisite intent is the critical question in all genocide prosecutions. In its landmark ruling, the ICJ describes the requisite intent under the Convention in two stages: first that the acts must be committed purposefully, and second that one must establish the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, . . . [the protected] group, as such." The court continued, "It is not enough to establish ... that deliberate unlawful killings of members of the group have occurred. ... Something more is required. The acts listed in Article II [of the Genocide Convention] must be done with intent to destroy the group as such in whole or in part. The words 'as such' emphasize that intent to destroy the protected group.

> Therefore, although certain Armenian deaths may have constituted intentional killings, they do not, even when discussed collectively, automatically rise to level of State-sanctioned genocide.

• The ICJ instructs that "specific intent is also to be distinguished from other reasons or motives the perpetrator may have. Great care must be taken in finding in the facts a sufficiently clear manifestation of that intent." In other words, one cannot infer specific intent solely, as some Armenian advocates tend to do, from the fact that many Armenians died. Evidence must clearly demonstrate specific intent within the meaning of the Convention and that has not been done.

• Nothing alleged in H. Res. 106 or in the materials referred to in H. Res. 106 meets this newly articulated standard.

---

This material is distributed by The Livingston Group, LLC on behalf of The Republic of Turkey.
Additional information is available at the Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.