2791) Open Letter To Turkish Embassy, Canberra, Australia

Re: Breaking-News-South-Australia

Your Excellency, Ambassador Ersavcı,

I wish to express my huge disappointment in connection with the above decision and request your intermediacy to relay my observations, and also my historical justifications to the concerned Parliament members or all other Press or Diplomatic entities, (ABC etc) as a reply of a Turkish citizen, defending need of “truths and ethics” over the world. . .

My father fought at Gallipoli; my uncle died there! When I had visited Australia exactly twenty years ago for about a month, including three days in Adelaide and Murray River region, I was indeed happy to enjoy a warm hospitality of polite and decent people without any trace of complexion or colonial superiority.

I do not know if it is the lack of our government and her representatives not teaching the Australian community on the values of Turks and a friendship unilaterally established over some historical or imperial confrontations!.

I have the impression that esteemed speakers, Messrs. David Ridgway and Bernard Finnigan, by standards of their education, profession and arbitration, or time devotion to the topic, fall much behind in accusing a large country on the other side of the World, as “criminals of genocide”. Given the image and friendly attitude towards Australians who visit their ancestors’ graves at Gallipoli every year, the “polished words of rude animosity and hatred” spoken out by the representatives are not ironic but pathetic for their essence of truth and proof!

I believe that the speakers and members in support, “thought that they were serving a noble humane cause,” by simply reading a short draft handed to them by some lobbyists, who gave visible preference to their past ethnicity instead of their present nationality, and diluted the clean sentiments of the Australian people, by stirring inside the dirt or their ignorance or historical beliefs, herewith contradicted by the annexed memo!

I am afraid that these gentlemen, have no knowledge of their own history on this subject and if they have ever read the book “The Destruction of Aboriginal Society” (ISBN 0708 106234) or even glanced the internet about Gallipoli, Armenia, Turkiye or if they have an average grasp of basic geographic information.

My competence on the subject is open on internet to the whole World, by my book “The Genocide of Truth”.

. But, if the honorable members have the authority but no time to read nearly 2000 verbatim references, then I would demand that they at least read Genocide-Lies-Need-No-Archives. and see what size of slander they have committed by believing in what they were told, but without the care to double or triple checking the validity of such information or assuming colonial or imperial authority. Sirs, this resolution is inferior even to “lynching mob justice” in so far that you have not asked the accused party to defend itself! I am sure that your concept of lawfulness will at least permit this minimal right of defense and that political bodies are not places where history, justice is discussed and settled in absentia of the accused by self-authority..

Gentlemen, I annex a “memo sheet” with verbatim excerpts proving that there “was never any genocide” and that even the little scenario of “Beirut orphans” is nothing but a distortion of a small fraction of a past drama, in which the Revolutionist Armenian Leaders (forerunners of ANCA) were responsible. The humanitarian Australian Relief was not even one spoon in the bucket of world wide relief sent to Christian – destitute Armenians, a large portion spent on arms and ammunition and a fraction embezzled by the collectors. Dear Sirs, you have made “sharp conclusions all by yourselves” without any documentation, justification, confrontation or opposition. Such an act of injustice “claimed to be in the name of humanity” is nothing but a cowardly shame and a huge insult to the memory of around 50.000 Anzacs who died at Gallipoli as aggressors attacking a nation in self-defense, without any valid reason! Gentlemen, you totally forgot the sufferings of your brave grand fathers and almost cursed their memories and souls by passing such an irresponsible resolution, for the country which protect their remains as you can watch in the video

ANZACS had developed an “understanding of fairness and chivalry” during a war of existence! The present parliament at peacetime, managed to smear fabricated dirt presented by some “advisors or beggars”, carrying their cunning and grudge qualities, all the way from the Near East,. ANZACS left their dead bodies in fighting an enemy they never knew, while the revolutionist Armenians embezzled donations and abandoned their own people..

Conclusion; Gentlemen, read the attached memo and show it to those lobbyists who have cheated on you and used your parliament as a means to express “their own grudges and hatreds”. I invite all historians, scholars, politicians, writers in the whole World to prove if any of my submitted irrefutable proofs is untrue. If attached evidence is correct, then your past decision is erroneous! Errors can be rectified by men of principle, honor and decency and even turned into an everlasting victory or strong compassion! Many would shy away trying to cover their past mistake, but few would have the courage. As confirmed in the annex, ANZACS had the “spirit and courage of heroism under appalling conditions” and they died for it. They are revered in Turkiye as “decent honorable warriors”. I want to have the same respect for the representatives of the great Australia! Am I asking too much? For the need of “honesty and truth defense” for a better world, you may please read my ideals expressed in my London Conference on Jan. 30th, 2009

This unfortunate experience exhibits how easy the democracy and benevolence of the people of Australia can be reversed into blank animosities by outside hearsay propaganda of those who indirectly abuse the freedom and wealth they cherish in Australia. Your Excellency, I am available to receive or reply any comments that may disagree with the contents of this OPEN LETTER submitting valid documentary evidence, to waive or belie given references on the annex. I express my apology for the sharpness of some of my explanations, but TRUTH CANNOT PREVAIL IF NOT SPOKEN OUT! Although I feel heavily insulted as a Turkish citizens with great respect for the Australians, I tried to be outspoken for best understanding.

The intermediacy and diffusion of my application to concerned parties and all communities, under my own responsibility, will be highly appreciated. You may please convey any replies, supported by valid documentation.

Yours cordially,
Sukru Server Aya, Istanbul

---

Annex - Memo For Explanations Of Points Raised

A) (p.42) “Why Armenia should be Free” G. Pastermadjian, Boston 1918

This decision of the Armenians cost them, the sacrifice of more than 1.000.000 men in Turkish Armenia, and complete devastation of their native land even in the first year of the war.

In spite of this terrible blow, the Armenians did not lose their vigor, and even though the autocratic Russian government, up to the time of the Revolution, created all sorts of obstacles to impede their activities, they still continued their assistance to the allied cause. In bringing about the failure of the three offensives in 1914 and 1915 the Armenians gave the allied cause important armed assistance, on both sides of the Turco-Russian frontier. (Note: Total number of deaths due to deprivations, epidemics was 300.000 plus 200.000 who died in Armenia under their New Republic 1919-1921 due to starvation and alike reasons. The word “sacrifice” is misguiding. Dependable documents belie 1.000.000 deaths.)

---

B) “What Really Happened at Paris Peace Conference 1918-1919” Charles Scriber Sons NY 1921

(p.46) `Directly, the United States is responsible for the present plight of the Armenians, by default of service. An essential weakness of our position in all Near Eastern affairs was that we had not declared war upon Turkey.

Hence we could not, in the period of the armistice, send troops into Turkish Armenia when such action might have saved many thousands of people from starvation. Not having declared war upon Turkey, we were always, during the period of discussion, outsiders, impotent to affect the actual course of the negotiations or put our own stamp upon the decisions taken.

(p.47) In March 1915, began a series of negotiations between the Allied Powers in respect to the disposition of Turkish territory in case of Allied victory. From these issued four international compacts. By the Sazonof-Paleologue Agreement of March 4, 1915, Constantinople and the control of the Straits were to go to Russia.

(p.47) In the spring of 1916 Russian troops had pushed for-ward into the four northeastern provinces of Turkish Armenia and were in military occupation of a large territorial area. Fear aroused among her allies by this Russian advance undoubtedly dictated the next step in the series of negotiations which, with our own failure to participate, made impossible the application of any modern or liberal policy in dealing with Turkey and rendered impotent at the peace conferences all those forces which worked for new and sounder methods of diplomatic treatment in settling the problems of the Near East. In May, 1916, it was secretly agreed that Russia was to acquire in sovereignty the four Armenian vilayets of Trebizond, Erzerum, Van, and Bitlis. British and French negotiations, conducted at the same time, roughly defined the respective area acquisitions or spheres of these two Powers by the ill-fated Sykes-Picot Treaty. Palestine, as then stipulated, was to be constituted as a separate state under a special international regime.

(p.49) At the Peace Conference the principal delegations from the Near East present throughout the protracted period of the peace negotiations were: the Greek, headed by Venizelos, shrewd, tireless, and innocent-looking; the Arab delegation, headed by Emir Feisal, a sincere young man, and a stately and attractive figure in his Arab head-dress and flowing robes; the Zionist delegation, led by Doctor Chaim Weizmann, with assistance from a number of able American and British representatives; two delegations of Armenians, that of Turkish Armenia, directed by the strange figure of Nubar Pasha, a wealthy Egyptian landowner, and that of the former subjects of Russian Armenia, under the leadership of a distinguished poet and novelist, Avetis Aharonian. There came, also, other committees whose stay was temporary. These had been sent to represent certain more localized phases of the separatist tendencies aroused amid the ruins of the Ottoman Empire by the new political evangelia of self-determination. Among them were the delegates of the Smyrna Greeks, demanding reunion with the mother country; of the Pontic Greeks headed by the archbishop of Trebizond, with the same Irredentist dream, or failing that, with a demand for localized independence as a Pontic Republic. The Kurds were there, claiming rights of independent statehood over an area that covered a large portion of the territory claimed by the Armenians of Turkey.

(p.50) The first of the Near Eastern claimants to appear at a hearing before the Council of Ten was the persistent and astute Greek premier, Eleutherios Venizelos. On February 3 and 4 of 1919 he presented the claims of Greece. He was the favored of France and Great Britain. In fluent French, and with an engaging appearance of frankness, he laid claim to southern Albania, Bulgarian and eastern Thrace, and the western coast of Asia Minor. One must recall that his claims could not be answered by two of the parties most interested and most directly affected by his patriotic dreams of a Greater Greece.

(p.50) They delivered the Turkish peasants to the tender mercies of Prussian drill-masters, who beat them into shape as soldiers. These soldiers starved or died of disease, chiefly cholera, typhus, and dysentery, literally by the thou-sand, while the wheat their people raised was shipped to Germany.

(p.50) It was the American belief that the crux in the question of the future welfare of the Near East lay in giving, for once in history, a chance to this peasantry of Asia Minor. The great majority of all westerners interested in and acquainted with the Near East missionaries, the British Freshfield and Whal merchant organizations, the American tobacco interests were opposed to granting Smyrna to Greece. Yet it was eventually done, though in compromised form.

(p.50) This was done on the morning of May 15, 1919, in open daylight, though the Turkish local authorities were assured repeatedly that it would be an occupation by Allied troops, including Greeks. Upon May 15 and 16 Greek troops and civilians massacred between 400 and 800 Turks in the city and its environs. In the next two weeks the killing of Turks, with all the horrible accompaniments of Near Eastern massacres, spread through the countryside roundabout as the Greek troops advanced. It is a moderate estimate to say that over 2,000 Turks men, women, and children were done to death unnecessarily by this decision of the War Council and the Council of Four.

(p.51)Knowledge of the Smyrna incident is necessary to an understanding of the elements which have made the Turkish negotiations at Paris and London and their re-sults, embodied in the Treaty of Sevres, entirely ineffective, especially in respect to their provisions for Armenian independence. For Armenia has been betrayed by the civilized world and thrown upon the tender mercies of Bolshevist Russia and the Turkish Nationalist forces.

(p. 51) News of the Smyrna massacres spread rapidly through-out the Near East. It caused terror and suspicion of the Allied intention, even in Syria. Great mass meetings of protest were held in Constantinople. Young Turk leaders had already fled into Asia Minor and were then attempting to organize, under the new name of the Tashkilat Milli, Turkish resistance to the disruption of the empire. The empire had meant to many of them official position, whether in the army or in civil service, which was their means of subsistence, with limitless opportunities of graft. The massacres gave life and purpose to their appeal to the Turkish peasantry, to defend them-selves against other massacres which would surely befall them when the Allied control should be established. It helped, no doubt, in destroying the confidence of the Allies in Venizelos, and in the possibility of a just rule by the Greeks over the Turkish population of Asia Minor. Venizelos continued to work tirelessly through the fall of 1919 and the spring of 1920, but his diplomatic skill could no longer meet the odds against him. In a last desperate cast against fortune he made promises in May of 1920 to defeat the forces of Mustapha Kemal Pasha in Asia Minor. He threw in additional Greek troops who advanced toward Constantinople and Ismid. The Turks retreated before them, fighting guerilla war-fare. In October of 1919 a Smyrna Greek confessed: "Smyrna will be the tombstone over the reputation of Venizelos."

(p.52) In December of 1919 the United States Government withdrew from active participation in the work of the Peace Conference. This removed the chief deterrent to the settlement of the Turkish problems, in the sense that no force opposed to the secret treaties was any longer represented in the meetings of the Supreme Council.

(p.52) The efforts of the two Armenian delegations at Paris were directed toward the ultimate end of establishing an independent state, including the Armenians of Russian Transcaucasus and the four northeastern vilayets of Turkey, stretching southwestward so as to embrace a part of Cilicia, and debouching upon the Mediterranean Sea at the Bay of Alexandretta. Their immediate desire was to obtain recognition of the Armenian Republic of the Transcaucasus as a de facto government, so that they might be in a position to obtain credits, money for food for the 400,000 refugees assembled in Russian Armenia, and for arms and ammunition with which they might defend themselves against Moslem Tartar and Turkish attacks and move the refugees back to their homes in Turkish Armenia! But the Armenian mountains have little to offer in exchange for help, except a brave, industrious, and broken people. `

---

C) “Near East Relief Report of US Congress-Senate”, April 22, 1922

(p.9) “The administration committee at Beirut, until the recent Cilician exodus, has been free from the more pressing problems of general relief until has been able to place large numbers of orphans in homes, thereby reducing the number of orphans in Near East Relief institutions in Syrian area to 6.775.” (Note: The Armenians who were relocated in the Syrian area, went back to their homes after the armistice, together with the British, later French armies,, resettled and started atrocities under French uniforms. People fought back, and French army had to evacuate the area under a new treaty of 20.9.1921 and the Armenians who had come back, decided themselves to abandon their homes. This is what is meant by “exodus”, involving some 150.000 to 200.000 people (American Relief Report says 300.000.. There was no war in Beirut area, the orphans referred in the Australian resolution are the orphans of the Armenian community, who were relocated in the Syrian area, some of them went back with Allied armies, and when France asked for peace, they decided to leave. Turks “asked them to stay, since they held all important professions” but they decided to leave and destroy the economic life”. Cician and Southern Anatolia

“There are still, however many orphans in Cilicia and it has been the hope and purpose of the Beirut committee to transfer these and all others in the Cilician and Southern Anatolia….”

(p.9)“”Throughout Anatolia, in the hear of the territory controlled by Mustafa Kemal Pasha, there are dozens of orphanages steadily assisted by American men and women representing the Near East Relief. These include 350 Armenians at Angora, the capital of the Nationalists; 3.190 in Caeserea; 5.176 at Harpoot; 813; at the area of port of Samsoun; 1.368 at Sivas; 465 at Marsovan and other offices and centers”.

(Note: These were all areas controlled by Turkish Nationalist Forces and show that Turks did not hinder the Relief Activities of American. There were several other Turkish orphanages under the special cares of Kiazim Karabekir Pasha in the Eastern Anatlolia and Djemal Pasha in Iraq-Syrian-Palestine region. There are books, photos by thousands for these orphanages, kept up owing to fodd scarcity of war and the fact that all ports were under Allied blockade”. The orphans who were taken care later after the exodus in Beirut, is just a spoon in the bucket. Your Armenian origin members, immediately connected this humane past drama, to “genocide” accusation, What a shame?”

---

D) “IMAGES OF GALLIPOLI”, P.A. Pedersen, Melbourne Univ. Press 1985

Facing stalemate on the Western Front, the Western allies looked for another way of bringing pressure to bear on Germany at the start of 1915. An attack on Turkey seemed the obvious choice. The appearance of a naval fleet off Constantinople, they thought, would quickly lead to a Turkish collapse and open up communications to beleaguered Russia. But the fleet failed ignominiously. The army tried next. On 25 April, it landed on the Gallipoli Peninsula to seize the shore defenses holding up the ships. Eight months and 265,000 casualties later, the army withdrew. The objectives it was to have taken on the first day were still in Turkish hands.

The hastiness and confusion surrounding its inception, the grudging material support it received, and the bungling by the senior allied commanders, make the Gallipoli campaign fascinating for connoisseurs of military incompetence. The soldiers were the victims of this muddle. Yet they performed heroically. The stoic endurance and unquenchable spirit of both sides under appalling conditions have enshrined Gallipoli as a byword for courage which time has not dimmed.

The photographs in this book, most of them published for the first time, give a vivid impression of what the Gallipoli campaign was like for those who fought in it. Most probably taken by a surgeon in the Royal Naval Division, they illustrate not just the fighting on land but the naval and aerial battle as well. Detailed captions explain the significance of each picture and contain a wealth of supplementary information. A penetrating introduction places the photographs in their correct historical setting and describes events as the photographer would have experienced them. Images of Gallipoli will appeal to the general reader and to the military historian alike as an outstanding pictorial record of a unique campaign.

Dr P. A. Pedersen is one of Australia’s leading historians of the First World War. He is a graduate of both the Royal Military College, Duntroon, where he won the Queen’s Medal, and the Australian Command and Staff College, and has served as a company commander of the Royal Australian Regiment.

(p.7) Private Horace Bruckshaw of the Plymouth Battalion wrote that the fire was ‘so hot that one dare not move the little fınger’. Anticipating a naval bombardment, the Turks withdrew at dawn on 26 April. Their opponents were retiring as well. Bruckshaw remarked: ‘This order we could not understand. .. for we could see absolutely nothing to warrant .

(p.10)… As Moorehead says, ‘These battles were so repetitive, so ant-like and inconclusive, that it is almost impossible to discover any meaning in them unless one remembers the tremendous hopes with which each action was begun.’ At Second Krithia, the exhausted troops went forward at about the same time every day-11 a.m. on the 5th, 10 a.m. on the 7th and 10.15 a.m. on the 8th, by which evening 6000 men, thirty per cent of the attacking force, had been lost for a gain of 600 yards. Murray, not too pleased that his brigade had been attached to the French, wrote on 6 May:

At dusk Murray, who led a charmed life, made his way back to the trench he had left near midday to find it three or four deep with bodies. They were slumped on the firestep and hanging over the parapet, some head first as they had died of their wounds or had been riddled with bullets as they were trying to make their escape. Of others, only their legs could be seen, their bodies Iying over the parapet.

(p.11) The attempt to advance at Helles had now cost the MEF nearly 60.000 casualties. But the attacks went on throughout. June-July,.The Turks losing almost 16.000 men themselves in counter-attacks, 28 June and 5 July.

Hunter-Weston, who had once remarked: “Casualties? What do I care about casualties?” mentioned that he had been glad of the change of “blooding the pups”. Having exhausted his army, he now collapsed from strain and sunstroke and left the Peninsula.

(p.14) Like most troops on the Peninsula, the RND had received little training in trench warfare. The Hawke Battalion, for example, had only had one day’s training in England on trench digging.Disadvantaging the MEF further was the lack of suitable equipment for trench combat, which spawned a frenzied spree of improvisation amply demonstrated in several of Taylor’s photographs.

(p.16) The heat was enervating for ail troops. By July it was averaging 84°F in the shade—if any could be found. Helles was ‘parched and dry and every blade of herbage had disappeared’. The Peninsula resembled a desert, brown and ankle-deep in dust. Between 4 a.m. and 8 p.m. every trench and dugout became a furnace, which the occupants shared with scorpions, centipedes and tarantulas brought out by the heat. Whereas the Turks on the heights had abundant water supplies, shortages on the plain below were acute. Apart from one or two in Guliy Ravine, Helles was devoid of wells. Water had to be brought from Egypt, 700 miles away, pumped ashore and carried forward by mules

(p.17)…the flies are so thick that they are squashed in the process. One never sees the jam; one see a blue-black mixture of sticky, sickly flies. They drink the sweat on our bodies and our lips and eyes are always covered with them. As we wipe them away, we squash them, thereby making more moisture for the others that take their place. There is no escape from them. The hundred we eat do not seem to lesson the swarm. They are forever present, night and day

…a place where a burning sun had turned the bodies of the slam to a premature corruption, where there was no resting-place free from physical contamination, where the air, the surface of the ground, and the soil beneath the surface were alike poisonous, fetid, corrupt.

(p.18)The combination of depressing conditions, tiring work under shellfire, grossly inadequate spells out of the line, food that men would rather throw away than eat and, above all, the flies, made the onset of intestinal disease certain. By July the ‘Gallipoli Gallop’, or the ‘Gallipoli Trots’ as it was alternatively known, had reached epidemic proportions: ‘there was scarcely a man. . . who was not a victim’. With an average of over one thousand men being evacuated weekly, the disease was causing far greater losses than the Turks were.. Hamilton remarked on the overwhelming lassitude it engendered: ‘It fills me with a desperate longing to lie down and do nothing but rest…

(p.19) As always at Gallipoli, the change came late. J. G. Gasarich, who was a dysentery patient sent to Imbros in this period with dozens of others in like state, wrote: ‘we slept on the ground and were fed stew and tea which only made matters worse’ Bruckshaw reached Mudros on 27 October.

(p.20) In fact the attack had already failed. “All that remained was aftermath.”, says Rhodes James. It consisted of the hideously bloody fighting around Hill 60 which eventually linked the Suvla beach-head, six miles wide and three deep, with Anzac. The MEF had lost over 40.000 men in under three weeks.

(p.21) About 1200 men were evacuated with frostbite and exposure from Helles but almost 15.000 were afflicted at Anzac and Suvla. Most of the 280 deaths came from the northern enclaves. The Turks fared worse and, occasionally, both side stamped about trying to keep warm in full view of each other with few shots being fired.

(p.22) Kitchener reluctantly agreed when he visited Gallipoli in November. The last troops left Anzac and Suvla on 19-20 December. Murray was stunned: “Had we really admitted defeat? Had all the suffering been wasted and what of the dead?

(p.23) To which Murray’ final words might well be added: “The Turks did not beat us – we were beaten by our High Command. Total MEF casualties were about 265.000, including 46.000 dead. The Turks lost about 300.000.

---

E) THE ARMENIAN QUESTION Before the Peace Conference, Paris, Feb26, 1919 OFFICIAL MEMO

(p.4)



(p. 5)



(p.6)



Note: On page 12 of the memorandum, the Armenian delegation was requesting the victors not only to give them a huge portion of land between two the Black Sea and Mediterranean, half of the size of Anatolia, but they

Were also demanding that this area be evacuated:

a- By Turks – Tartars and similar non Christian elements who were 85% of the population in 1914
b- That all this population be stripped of their arms
c- To punish all that participated in massacres….

This memorandum was signed by A. Aharonian and Bogos Nubar on Feb.12, 1919

---

Questions That Need To Be Answered By Genocide Pipers:
1- If the Armenian population was all massacred as claimed in 1915, who was going to fill up this huge area of about 300.000 km2 or more?
2- What more evidence can any one ask, to claim innocence, when so much treason, barbarity is evident in submitted documents.
3- For MORE, please refer to my book here

---

Compiled by Sukru Server Aya, in Istanbul on March 30, 2009 as ANNEX to APPLICATION.

---