Read Full Post !
Excerpted from:
Harry E. Barnes, Genesis of the World War (New York: Knopf, 1926), pp. 241-247:
. . .
Read Full Post !
Diplomacy & International Politics & Diplomatists As Seen At Close Range
It is not true that Western sources support mostly the “genocide” allegations.
US journalist George Abel Schreiner, who traveled extensively in Anatolia, wrote that “Turkish ineptness, more than intentional brutality, was responsible for the hardships the Armenian subjected to” (The Craft Sinister: A Diplomatic History of the Great War and Its Causes, New York, G. Albert, 1920, pp. 124-125). Read More . .
George A. Schreiner, American War/Political Correspondent, "The Craft Sinister: A Diplomatico-Political History of the Great War and its Causes, (G. Albert Gayer, New York, 1920)"; Schreiner criticized Ambassador Morgenthau in a letter, aware of the Ambassador's fabrications in "Ambassador Morgenthau's Story." Read more . .
It wasn't just the Germans who could not let go of their religious and racial bigotry against the Turks, accepting at face value the horror stories of their missionary and Armenian co-religionists. American war correspondent George Abel Schreiner detailed the workings of German bias in this revealing excerpt from 'The Craft Sinister' 1920.
The Germans' Austrian allies are also on record for echoing the same "Terrible Turk" sentiments, regarding the Armenian "genocide." While the Germans had enough wars with the Ottoman Turks through the centuries to not have developed the friendliest predisposition, it was likely worked more into the Austrian soul that the Turks were barbarians. The Ottoman Turks, after all, twice stormed the gates of Vienna, leading to the development of the croissant (each time the Austrians bit into the crescent-shaped pastry, it was like "giving it" to the Turks.) Read More . .
George A. Schreiner in his "The Craft Sinister: A Diplomatico-Political History of the Great War and its Causes, (G. Albert Gayer, New York, 1920)" writes about Ambassador Morgenthau¹s misleadings of the American government. ("It is to be hoped that the future historian will not give too much heed to the drivel one finds in the books of diplomatist-authors.") The distinguished foreign correspondent (having served in Turkey from February through the end of 1915) wrote Morgenthau a biting December 11,1918 letter, criticizing him for the fallacies in his unethically written book (Ambassador Morgenthau's Story).
It seems to me Morgenthau let his ego run away with him, enjoying the notion that his fellow Americans looked upon the ambassador as the savior of a Christian people. The intensity with which he communicated his thoughts (as with the article above) provides a strong clue... he must have liked the fact that he came across as a hero. There are a good number of passages in his ghost-written book where his heroic deeds and attitude is presented (or as Schreiner mocked, his "omniscience and omnipotence"), even though some of his letters and diaries paint an altogether different picture.
For example, there is a point where he forces himself on the Turkish leaders whenever he wants:
"I shall not be denied an interview," I replied. "I shall come up to the cabinet room at four o'clock. If you refuse to receive me then, I shall insist on going into the council room and discussing the matter with the whole Cabinet. I shall be interested to learn whether the Turkish Cabinet will refuse to receive the American Ambassador."
Immediately after which, Enver Pasha is heard to gasp over the phone. As always, Morgenthau gets what he wishes. Read More . .
Perhaps we owe the survival of the Schreiner letter in the Morgenthau material to the veiled threat with which it ends. When Schreiner states: "of diplomatic events on the Bosphorus more will be heard as soon as I can get at my notes and documents now in Europe," Morgenthau may have taken it as a sign of Schreiner's intent to place before the public the kinds of charges found in the letter. If that was the case, his fears were not rewarded. Schreiner did indeed write a book attacking Wilson's habit of sending untrained individuals as Ambassadors to European capitals in wartime, and, as might be expected, Morgenthau is one of his case studies of this practice. However, The Craft Sinister, as his book was titled, adds little detail to the charges contained in the letter. 117 This despite a comment in his 'Preface' which leads the reader to think otherwise:
"It is to be hoped that the future historian will not give too much heed to the drivel one finds in the books of diplomatist-authors. I at least have found these books remarkably unreliable on the part played by the author. It would seem that these literary productions are on a par with the 'blue books' published by governments for the edification of the public and their own amusement, as in some cases I will show."
What Schreiner contents himself with doing, in a chapter titled "Diplomacy in Turkey," is to detail the close relationship which existed between Morgenthau and his German counterpart, Baron Wangenheim, and, likewise, the very warm friendship in which Morgenthau held Enver Pasha. He prefaces his remarks on the Wangenheim Morgenthau relationship by saying:
"But the books of diplomatists must not be taken too seriously. The ambassador who avers that from the very inception of trouble he was with this or with that side may be doing nothing more than presenting just one side of his attitude, with slight exaggerations, possibly. The fact in this case is, Mr. Morgenthau was well liked by the German diplomatists in Pera, and, long after the outbreak of the War, was not averse to being known as a friend of Baron Wangenheim."
George A. Schreiner, The Craft Sinister: A Diplomacy Political History of the Great War and its Causes-Diplomacy and International Politics and Diplomatists as Seen at Close Range by an American Newspaperman who Serve in Central Europe as War and Political Correspondent. New York (G. Albert Geyer),1920. For American diplomacy in Turkey, see: pp.110-135 in particular. (Hereafter: Schreiner, Craft Sinister).
Schreiner, Craft Sinister: p. xxi
Schreiner, Craft Sinister: p.126. Read More . .
Craft Sinister by Schreiner-Part I
Craft Sinister by Schreiner-Part II
.
Read Full Post !
- Book Review of “Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story” -
At the time my first book “The Genocide of Truth” was in stage of final compilation in 2007, I did not spare one of my chapters to this important pivotal figure in the Turkish – American – Armenian three party relations, mainly because my Volume 1 book (702 pages) was full enough of many other (some 2000) excerpted documents.
Yet, the name and deeds of Morgenthau is referred about fifty times in my .. book, with two important references based on the research by Prof. Heath W. Lowry, on the diary and letters of Henry Morgenthau, after which he wrote his piercing book “The Story Behind Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story” ISBN-975-428-019-3.. 
.
Read Full Post !
- Open Letter by Sukru Server Aya -
I have read the subject article and I am amazed at the “shortage of knowledge” of the writer on Armeno-Turkish or Armeno-Jewish connections in the past century. .
The purpose of this commentary is to put light “only on the portion studied by me quite extensively, viz. the knowledge given on Henry Morgenthau, Sr. which falls very short of the available documented references. I am not commenting “anything” about the period and actions of his son, on which I know almost nothing. I have also read the “storm of pro-Armenian” commentators, which are based on fragments of general or hearsay stories. Any person that can defy the references I have given, annexed or indicated, with equivalent reliability, is welcome to comment on “any wrongs in my references”. I regret the fact that for exact details, you have to refer to my book “The Genocide of Truth” at your immediate reach. Present annex is just a short abstract for ease.
The writer is a scholar of Jewish history but my impression is that he has not read enough on the Turkish-Armenian or Turkish-Jewish or Armenian-Jewish relations in the near past and has exhibited few errors in his short introduction, viz:
a- Henry Morgenthau‘s status as a “crusader of human rights” or “opportunist getting a reward from W. Wilson against his contribution in money ($ 30.000) and services in the campaign” is hard to tell! Mr.Morgenthau did not speak any foreign language, had no diplomatic experience and was totally guided by his personal secretary Hagop S. Andonian and official dragoman of the Embassy Arshag Schimavonian. The ambassador has left Istanbul only once by boat to Beirut for about a month where he met Lord Bryce, and Missionary Bliss, with whom he was to stay in close contact. Other than this boat trip, the ambassador was never out of Istanbul, has not seen any of the atrocity areas and every information he received was through these two persons, whom he took along with him to USA, or any of the other Armenian staff of the embassy.. Shimavonian was given a job at the State Department, whilst Andonian helped the Ambassador for drafting his book “Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story” which was ghost written by Pullitzer-prize winner Burton J. Hendrick, for a sizable share of the book income.
b- The ambassador was “assigned by Wilson and State Secretary Lansing, to procure-produce humane causes to justify the participation of USA in WW1 as a savior of Christianity and Humanity”. The ambassador was heavily involved in the propaganda activities, by sending the “letters sent by the missionaries to the Embassy” to Arnold Toynbee and Lord Bryce in “diplomatic bags”, for use in the “propaganda stories” drafted for the “Blue Book”.
c- Attached is a list with excerpts from various U.S. Newspapers, and the headlines are self-explanatory. You are also asked to read in full the article that appeared in the “Reno Evening Gazette” on Oct.15, 1915 about the “status of atrocities and role of the ambassador”.
d- The notes written by the ambassador in his diary about the visit of Zenop Bezcian (page…269. ) and the letter found in his drawer written by Associated Press correspondent George A. Schreiner (page 335) is more than enough to prove the hypocrisy of the ambassador. It was again him, who gave the same notes to German Pastor Lepsius during his one month stay in Istanbul. Lepsius gave the notes to Franz Werfel, who wrote the damning novel “Forty Days at Musa Dagh”.
e- The ambassador was largely involved in relief activities and for this reason was received with applauds in Boston when he returned to USA. The ambassador was in Turkey from Nov.27th, 1913 to Feb. 1919, some 26 months only.
f- Morgenthau did not resign! U.S.A. had allied herself with Britain who was at war with the Ottoman Empire.
Although there was no war declared between USA and Turkey (not to effect the status of the missionary schools and hospitals who remained open and were a large investment of U.S. missionaries) the diplomatic relations had to be cut and the ambassadors called back temporarily. Once he was back, Morgenthau was involved in relief and pro-Armenian activities during the rest of his life. He went by himself to the Paris Conference in 1919 to put pressure on the leaders and he was instrumental to deter the Turkish-USA relations even at the Lausanne Conference.
g- The ambassador was first on the “Board of Trustees” and later in the “Executive Committee” of the “Near East Relief Organization” which was approved by President Wilson on Aug.6, 1919. The report of activities, collections and expenditures effective on Dec.31, 1921 was approved by the U.S. Joint Senate – Congress on April 22, 1922 under document no. 192. Mr. Morgenthau ‘s name is clearly written in the executive board and hence he bears full responsibility for the contents of this 29 page report. This report makes no mention of any acts of “race extermination”, on the contrary “almost thanks Turks” for the protection of orphanages and clearly indicates that effective 31.12.1921, one million Armenians were alive in Armenia, 300.000 in Syria who had evacuated the area with the French pull out and 114.000 persons throughout various orphanages.
In as far that the total Armenian population in the Ottoman Empire was 1.3 to 1.5 millions ( page 303 ) the accusation of genocide and “mass murder”, does not hold by simple arithmetic. I guess that it is up to the pro-Armenian scholars to bring a “logical explanation” to this paradox.
h- My book contains over 1500 excerpts and nearly 500 documents, all from anti-Turkish or neutral sources, which leaves the conclusion to the reader about the gigantic distortions and fabrications.
I- The writer is cordially invited to read chapter 21 of my book and in particular pages 452-453 and familiarize himself
with the Armenian claims and book saying that “Jews exterminated Armenians”(!). It also seems natural that the writer is totally unaware of the Armenian-Nazi Battalions and the fact that it was the Turkish ambassador Behic Erkin and his consular staff that managed to save Jews from going into death camps by “tens of thousands” (page 435.). The irony is that the news in Washington Post dated June 17, 1943 is ahead of the Morgenthau ‘s asking Roosevelt to save Jews when Turkish Republic had already risked diplomatic relations with Germany to save Jews. The writer may also be unaware of the fact that the “Hitler” news trick was applied during the Nuremberg Trials and not only saved the Nazi Armenians from being put on trial but also enabled some 20.000 of them to be accepted in USA as “displaced persons” including General Dro Drastamad Kanajan, who was the right hand of the German army (since he knew Russia and Russian armies too well) and this man was still speaking of “German and Armenian Victory” in the New Year speech in 1945 in Germany.
j- The writer could have at least contacted the Jews in Turkey and the 500th Year Foundation, to get some truthful information about the very old amicable relations between Turks and Jews. I fail the to understand the advocacy of the writer for Armenians, who had erased the last Jewish tribes in the Caucasus and now they have a Jewish community of only 300 persons living in Erivan, versus some 30.000 Jews totally mixed with Turks since times they were expelled from Spain.
Interested readers may get additional information from attached pages. History is a field requiring much reading from paradoxical sources, leaving the conclusion to the evaluation of the readers. For this reason, “scholars are expected to be extremely careful when writing their opinions on certain subjects” without having searched large and deep enough.
Sukru S. Aya - Istanbul. March 10, 2009
Annex: Some documentary references excerpted from the book for your comfort.
“Barton soon was the dominant Board administrator. In the position of foreign secretary, he gave priority to educational missions, becoming perhaps the outstanding American promoter of colleges abroad. He eventually assisted the start of development of 20 inter-denominational Christian schools of higher learning in Spain, Greece, Bulgaria, Turkey, India, Ceylon, China, and Japan, helping them secure over $30 million. In a constant dialogue with the U.S. Government, Barton sought to guard Protestant institutions in Turkey and elsewhere. With Barton as ACASR head, missionaries felt that not all would be lost. After months of dismay, the Protestant to Turkey began to hope again… During the winter of ACASR’s birth in 1915 -16, Morgenthau left for home. When he reached New York, the executive committee of the ACASR met him on docks.” #23
23. Joseph L. Grabill, Protestant Diplomacy & the Near East, U. of Minn. Press, 1991, pg.73
“… deeds of vengeance committed by the victorious insurgents. After the flight of the Turkish garrison, all important buildings in the city of Van were set on fire. Revenge for centuries of slavery under Turkish role exploded in ‘a night of orgy, of saturnalia,’ wrote an eyewitness. ‘It is impossible to even faintly depict the grandeur of the flaming night,’ Onnig Mukhitarian, the secretary of the Armenian defense council, recorded in his diary… After the departure of the Turks, writes the American missionary Clarence Ussher, the Armenians searched the city. ‘The men they put to death; the women and children they spared.’ Despite their protest, Dr. Ussher writes, this went on for two to three days. ‘They burned and murdered; the spirit of loot took possession of them, driving our every other thought. The American Mission compound, which earlier had sheltered 5,000 Armenian refugees, now took in 1,000 Turkish women and children. ‘These 1,000 fugitives,’ wrote Mrs. Ussher in a letter, ‘would all have been killed had we not opened our doors to them.’ Another German missionary noted years later that the three days of Armenian revenge that she had witnessed in Van were difficult to forget… This charge is not implausible. An Armenian boy, recalled Dr. Ussher, entered the Turkish military hospital and killed several patients who had been left behind. Another eyewitness writes that some of the Armenians went to look for their wounded in the Turkish hospital, ‘and when they did not find them they were so infuriated that they killed some of the Turkish wounded and burned the building.’ A Swiss missionary concluded with considerable understatement that the victorious Armenians of Van ‘did not act according to the provisions of the Geneva Convention and still less according to the words of Jesus Christ.’ The Turkish side, too, has made charges of atrocities.
Grand Vizier Said Halim told U.S. Ambassador Henry Morgenthau in 1915 that the Armenian rebels had killed 120 000 Turks at Van. A recent publication of the Assembly of Turkish-American Associations (ATAA) alleges that after the Armenian takeover, large numbers of Moslem inhabitants of the villages surrounding Van were murdered. ‘In one incident, Moslems from villages to the North of Van were herded into the village of Zeve, where all but a few of the approximately 3 000 Moslem villagers were killed. Similar incidents took place throughout the region.’ Another publication by the same organization includes interviews with survivors of the Van region, who tell how the ‘Armenians skinned the men, castrated them, and raped and impaled the women.’ Women and girls threw themselves into rivers to escape their tormentors. Many thousands of Armenians who feared punishment for the atrocities they had committed, writes a Turkish historian, fled with the retreating Russian troops into the Caucasus” #20
20. Guenter Lewy, The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey, U. of Utah Press, pg. 97- 98
“THE NEW YORK TIMES, Nov. 5, 1914: RUSSIAN INVASION of ARMENIA BEGUN – Several Towns Taken – Czar Has Splendid Native Soldiers to Fight the Turks “…
“THE NEW YORK TIMES, Nov.7, 1914: ARMENIANS FIGHTING TURKS – Besieging Van – Others Operating in Turkish Army’s Rear
London, Sat. Nov.7: The Turkish town of Van (140 miles southeast of Erzurum, Turkish Armenia) is being besieged by a detachment of Armenians, who are aiding the Russians. The town has a large arsenal. Another Armenian detachment is operating in the rear of the Turkish Army”
“…The Englishman C.F. Dixon-Johnson, however, writing in 1916, saw ‘good and sufficient reasons for believing that the Armenians themselves commenced the troubles’ by rising in rebellion. ” #21
21. Guenter Lewy, The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey, U. of Utah Press, pg. 99
“…Eventually, he writes, ‘the mountains swarmed with Armenian irregulars.’ A French military historian, too, links the Ottoman-Armenian volunteers to the partisans who attacked isolated Turkish units. Pasdermadjian noted with pride that the Armenian resistance movement in the summer of 1915 tied down five Turkish divisions and tens of thousands of Kurds, who therefore were not able to fight the Russians on the Caucasus front. Not surprisingly, the Turks eventually came to consider the Armenians a fifth-column and decided to take decisive measures to put an end to these treasonable actions. Ambassador Morgenthau reported to Washington on July 10th, 1915, that ‘because Armenian volunteers, many of them Russian subjects, have joined the Russian Army in the Caucasus and because some have been implicated in armed revolutionary movements and others have been helpful to Russians in their invasion of Van province, terrible vengeance is being taken.’ The Turkish position is that the issue was not revenge but national survival in a situation of extreme danger.
… During the Turkish mobilization none of the inhabitants of Zeitun accepted enlistment in the army, and by the end of 1914 clashes between Armenian bands and gendarmes had taken place. On Feb. 23, 1915, the French ambassador in Moscow reported that representatives of an Armenian revolutionary group in Zeitun had arrived in the Caucasus. Almost 15 000 men, the emissaries declared, were ready to attack Turkish lines of communication, but they lacked guns and ammunition. The commander of the Russian Caucasus army wanted to know whether British and French warships could bring arms via the port of Alexandrerta. The British rejected this idea as impracticable because of the difficulty of transporting arms and ammunition into the interior.” #79
79. Guenter Lewy, The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey, Univ .of Utah Press, pg.103
“A close reading of his comments as recorded in Morgenthau’s ‘Diary’ suggests that his comparison of their plans for the Armenians with the American treatment of the Negroes may have been, despite Morgenthau’s suggestion, well spoken. It is in fact ‘segregation’ which he is referring to, as is clear from the final statement attributed to Talat on this matter, to wit, ‘He said they would take care of the Armenians at Zor and elsewhere but they did not want them in Anatolia’. Why does Morgenthau not challenge Talat on this statement? Because it is not out of keeping with what he is hearing at that time from others, including Zenop Bezjian, the ‘vekil’ (representative) of the Armenian Protestants in the Ottoman Empire. A month after the above mentioned conversation with Talat, Morgenthau receives a visit from Bezjian, which he records in his diary ‘Diary’ in the following terms:
‘Zenop Bezjian, Vekil of Armenian Protestants, called! Schimavonian introduced him, he was his schoolmate. He told me a great deal about the conditions in the interior. I was surprised to hear him report that Armenians at Zor were fairly well satisfied: that they have already settled down to business and are earning their livings; those were the first ones that were sent away and seem to have gotten there without being massacred. He gave me a list where the various camps are and he thinks that over 500,000 have been displaced. He was most solicitous that they should be helped before winter set in’.” #10
10. Heath W. Lowry, The Story Behind Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story, The Isis Press – 1990, pg.50
“These diplomatic interventions appear to have had some success. Bergfeld reported on June 29, that the governor had informed the Porte of his decision to exempt, for the time being, Catholic Armenians, widows, orphans, old men, and pregnant women. Heizer confirmed these exemptions in a dispatch a day later. He noted that, together with his German and Austrian colleagues, he was continuing his efforts on behalf of women and children generally. By July 7, Heizer informed Morgenthau, 5 200 Armenians had been sent away. ‘When the parents so desired, the children were left behind and placed in large houses in different parts of the city. There are approximately 3 000 such children, retained in these houses called by the Turks ‘Orphanages.’ Girls up to 15 years of age inclusive, and boys to 10 years of age inclusive are accepted; those over these ages are compelled to go with their parents.’ A survivor has described how he was taken to one of these orphanages and was told by the gendarme guarding the institution not to be afraid. “#32
32. Guenter Lewy, The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey, U. of Utah Press, pg. 180
“…The Armenian… should be transported to the areas previously determined. The Catholics should be excluded from this relocation measure. Signed: Talat, 23.7.1915. …
28.7.1915. The laws relative to the liquidation of debts and credit between relocated Armenians and official institutions or private individuals, will be sent to you shortly. In the meantime, enter the particulars in a special register so that cases will not be lost sight of. Signed: Talat, Minister (of the Interior.)
30.7.1915. It is learnt that the private property of relocated Armenians is being sold very cheaply to monopolists of this class of business, thus greatly wronging the proprietors. Consequently, the following measures must be taken…” #33*
33. Salahi Sonyel, The Great War and the Great Tragedy of Anatolia, T.T.K., pg. 117
“Of the two British protagonists who championed the cause of Anglo-Armenian disinformation, Viscount James Bryce was a Turcophobe Liberal who 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 against these outrages (Turco - Armenian incidents), as their forefathers did against the Seleucids or the Parthians?’ He was easily taken in by the skilful and deceitful Armenian propagandists. For example, when an incident took place in August 1889 at Blaidar, in the Bisheri sub-district of eastern Anatolia, in which seven Armenians were murdered and 50 houses were burnt down, Bryce put the blame on Moslem tribesmen. In fact, the British Consular Agent, Thomas Boyadjian, who was himself an Armenian, had reported that the incident was caused by a long-standing antagonism between the two Armenian chiefs of the village, one of whom had become Roman Catholic and decided to have the family of the other exterminated.
… According to recent revelations by American scholar Heath Lowry, Bryce was also in touch with the U.S. Ambassador at Istanbul, Henry Morgenthau, with whom he had become acquainted in the course of a 1914 visit to Palestine. He wrote to Morgenthau, asking him: ‘If any reports come to your Embassy from the American missionaries scattered through Asiatic Turkey, which would cast light on the situation, possible you would allow me to see them occasionally. Morgenthau did provide Bryce with the reports of missionaries and with consular and travel reports. For example, the reports of American Consul J.B. Jackson from Aleppo were published anonymously in the ‘Blue Book’. Morgenthau admits this in an article he wrote to the Red Cross magazine (March, 1919, pg. 8): ‘Much of the material which I collected has already been published in the excellent volume of documentary material collected by Viscount Bryce’.” #6
6. Salahi Sonyel, The Great War & the Great Tragedy of Anatolia, T.T.K., pg. 145
“Henry Morgenthau combined the best views of Bristol, Gates and Barton. Using invitation to help the International Red Cross as an excuse to get to France, the finance chairman of the ACRNE on the first day of arrival, in March, 1919, had conversations with Wilson, House and Hoover. He prepared a memorandum for Wilson: ‘The Future Government of Asia Minor’, Morgenthau memorandum advocated that one nation, the U.S. or else Britain, supervise each of the three mandates Constantinople, Turkish Anatolia and Armenia...The Morgenthau Memorandum was a useful, even revolutionary document. It included much from the overlapping views about Turkey held by people in or related closely to the Protestant lobby. Coming out of the new diplomacy, it stressed public opinion in the Empire, which had preference for British or American mandates. Realistically, it ignored the cries about one mandate for the whole country. It therefore bypassed some Americans’ ethereal yearning over Syria, recognizing that a United Sates mandate over the Arabs was not a viable option. The paper rejected a totally independent Armenia. It took into account the prediction that such an entity with its mixed population would not easily escape hostilities with Turks. (The ACIA felt that the Morgenthau Memorandum’s failure to approve unqualified freedom for Armenia was immoral). It was most importantly an unorthodox policy proposal, capitalizing Wilson’s prescription of a mandate system for Turkey, overriding the secret treaties, disregarding the Cobb-Lippmann and other explanations of Point 12, admitting a long-term U.S. embroilment in the Old World ...But the Morgenthau Memorandum had important weaknesses. It came late in the Peace Conference. Further, the American public had little or no conditioning to the idea of a U.S. mandate, an idea which probably required the experience in mission-relief-government coordination developed by Barton during the years since 1915, and the American Board secretary was nearly inaccessible to Paris, having left a command post there for scouting in Asia Minor.” #24
24. Joseph L. Grabill, Protestant Diplomacy & the Near East, U.of Minnesota Press, 1991, pg.176
“By early-November, 1915, 150 - 200 Moslem inhabitants of Aleppo were dying of typhus every day.’ … Aleppo was at the junction of several important routes taken by the deportation convoys. Armenians from towns such as Brusa and Konia along the Baghdad railway were corning to Aleppo from the northwest on the still unfinished railroad. Armenians from various places in Cilicia were using branches of that same railroad. From the northeast, through Urfa, a road converged on Aleppo from Diyarbakır. That was the route taken by the deportees from Erzurum and Harput. Most of these exiles usually spent a few days in Aleppo or in transit camps located around the city. From Aleppo the exiles were shipped by rail eastward to Ras-ul-Ain and south to Hama, Homs, and Damascus and several locations in Palestine. Others were sent on foot toward Der-el-Zor in eastern Syria. American, German, and Austrian consular officials as well as foreign residents have given us descriptions of the deportees as they arrived in Aleppo and of conditions in the encampments in and around the city. A steady stream of deportees was poring into Aleppo, reported the American consul Jesse B. Jackson to Ambassador Morgenthau on June 5th, 1915. ‘Several expeditions have arrived here and have been taken care of locally by the sympathizing Armenian population of this city. A few days rest in the churches and schools, where they fill all rooms, balconies and even cover the roofs.’ Then they were forced to continue. By late-September, more than 30 000 had arrived by rail and at least 100 000 on foot.” #23*
22*. Guenter Lewy, The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey, Univ. of Utah Press, pg.191
“The high death toll certainly does not prove in and of itself the guilt of the Young Turk regime; nor can we infer from it that the deaths were part of a genocidal plan to destroy the Turkish-Armenian community. Large numbers of Turkish civilians died as a result of severe shortages of food and epidemics; large numbers of Turkish soldiers, especially the wounded in battle, perished for lack of adequate medical care and as a result of neglect and incompetence on the part of their own officers; and large numbers of British prisoners of war lost their lives as a consequence of inattention and the kind of gross mismanagement rampant in the Ottoman regime (see the discussion below). Yet these results surely do not prove that the Ottoman Government—ultimately responsible for all of these conditions—sought and intentionally caused the death of its own civilian population, of its own soldiers, and of its prisoners of war. The Turkish wartime government may deserve to be severely rebuked for its corruption and bungling misrule as well as for indifference to the suffering of its population during World War I. The Young Turk regime may be subject to special moral censure or condemnation because of its treatment of its Christian minorities. Yet not all this proves that this regime intended to annihilate the Armenian community. A large death roll, no matter how reprehensible, is not proof of a premeditated plan of extermination.
Most authors supporting the Armenian cause completely ignore the severe shortages of food that eventually were to afflict most classes of the Turkish population and led to widespread famines. The mobilization of large numbers of peasants in 1914 as well as the reckless requisitioning of their horses, oxen, and carriages had made it impossible to bring in the harvest; eventually left many fields untilled, and was one of the reasons for the growing food shortage. The American consul in Smyrna, George Horton, reported on Nov. 14, 1914, that there was much misery to be seen and that “people are actually beginning to starve.” The domestic situation in the spring of 1915, American ambassador Henry Morgenthau noted, “was deplorable: all over Turkey thousands of the populace was daily dying of starvation.” In the late spring and summer of 1915 Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria were devastated by a plague of locusts that destroyed everything in its wake and led to famine conditions. On Oct. 18, 1915, Enver told Morgenthau that the possibility of shortages of flour existed even in Constantinople and that ‘therefore it is not certain if they can furnish bread to the Armenians all through the winter.’ By the fall of 1916, the provincial governor told a German physician, 60,000 had died of hunger in the Lebanon alone; entire villages had become desolate and abandoned. According to the Austrian military attach the death mil in the Lebanon during the winter of 1915-16 was 150 000. Syria and Lebanon had always imported large amounts of food from Egypt. When allied war ships blockaded the coast, all trade with the outside came to a halt and the consequences for the food supply were severe.” #8
8. Guenter Lewy, The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey, U.of Utah Pr. pg.54-55
(9) The Honorable Henry Morgenthau, U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire from 1913-16, organized and led protests by officials of many countries, among them the allies of the Ottoman Empire, against the Armenian Genocide.
(9) Reply: Morgenthau’s private diaries and letters prove his lack of good faith, as they contradict the claims made in his 1918 book, which was ghostwritten for propaganda purposes. During 1915, he was on friendly terms with Ottoman officials, in contrast to his later “efforts to make the Turks the worst being on earth” (as his critic, George Schreiner worded it, in a Dec. 11th, 1918 letter which can be found in the Roosevelt Library Doc. 105)! Morgenthau was aware of the Armenians’ treason in his governmental communications, (e.g., March 18th, May 25th, 1915) information he later suppressed in order to present Armenians as innocent. Morgenthau was ordered by Wilson to provide “humane and moral reasons”, to convince general public that it was U.S.A.’s obligation to take part in WWI.
“On March 20th, Wilson tentatively approved House’s statement. ACRNE finance chairman Morgenthau at this time indicated in his diary the probability of a U.S. mandate over Armenia…Unexpectedly, it was Italy’s avarice for Adalia in southwestern Anatolia, not U.S. assent to a separate Armenian mandate of French cupidity for Syria, which first produced a dramatic display of the West’s intent toward Turkey. Italian Premier V. Orlando was a 19th century imperialist guided by an excited feeling in his country that the promises of Adalia in Anatolia and other spoils to Italy by Britain and France at St. Jean de Maurienne in 1917 and in other secret agreements were sacred. Then Wilson on April 24th, 1919, showed in the Supreme Council and in a press release an indomitable opposition to Italy’s violating the 14 Points by seeking to annex the Slavic speaking city of Fiume. Orlando thereupon left Paris and planned retaliation from Rome. Within a week, the Italian Government sent warships to Fiume across the Adriatic Sea and to Antalya. Soon Italians were ashore at points on the Turkish coast and moving inland. An occupation of Smyrna seemed imminent.” #9
9. Joseph L. Grabill, Protestant Diplomacy & the Near East, U.of Minn. Press, pg. 181
9 - “Daily Kennebec Journal - May 28th, 1914”
Armenian Volunteers are to be Increased to 15.000 - Assoc. Press Correspond.
Tiflis, April 28: (Note: Most likely, the Correspondent who sent this message was George A. Schreiner, whose letter to Ambassador Morgenthau in 1918, was found about his book!)
10 - “Iowa Recorder - June 1, 1914”
Destroy Many Towns
According to a dispatch from the Vali of Bitlis, Asiatic Turkey, 17 villages have been destroyed by Armenian insurgents in the district of Sassun. More than 600 Armenian families have taken refuge at Mush, a town in Bitlis.”
11 - “The Washington Post - August 10, 1914”
Slain With Bombs - Turkish Garrisons Attacked by Armenian Rebels. . .
Revenge for Massacre - Several Hundred Soldiers Killed in Fighting Around Sassun
12 - “Fort Wayne Journal - Nov.6, 1914
ARMENIANS JOINING RUSSIAN ARMY
13 - “The New York Times” - Nov.7th, 1914
Armenians Fighting Turks - Besieging Van – Others Operating in Turkish Army’s Rear
14 - “ Manitoba Free Press - Nov. 7th, 1914”
Campaign Against Turkey
The Armenians are aiding- the Russians in the campaign against Turkey. The Turkish town of Van, 140 miles southeast of Erzerum, Turkish Armenia, is being besieged by the Armenians.
15 - “The New York Times - Nov.10th, 1914”
Russians Take Erzurum - In pursuit of Kurdish Cavalry – Armenian Students Volunteering in Hundreds
16 - “The Ogden Standard - Nov.12th, 1914”
ARMENIANS HAIL TROOPS WITH JOY
Long Anticipated Date of Deliverance from Turks at Hand – People Prepared for Sacrifice
…
19 - “Elyria Evening Telegram - Nov. 13th, 1914”
ARMENIANS READY TO SIDE WITH RUSSIANS
Want to Get Into War in Order to be Delivered From Turkish Rule, Says Dispatch From Petrograd
Petrograd. Nov. 13, via London – Reports reaching the Russian capital from the Turkish border attach increasing importance to the part the Armenians are playing in the Russian-Turkish war.
In several towns occupied by the Russians the Armenian students have shown themselves ready to join the invading army and explained that they had prepared themselves for the Russian approach by constant drilling and by gathering arms, secretly. All along the line of march, according to these dispatches, the Armenian peasants are receiving the Russian troops with an enthusiasm and giving them provisions freely.
An Armenian newspaper, referring to this crisis in the history of Armenia, publishes the following:
“The long anticipated way of deliverance for the Turkish Armenians is at hand, and the Armenians are prepared for any ‘sacrifice grade necessary by the performance of their manifest duty’”
From this border country there have come to Petrograd further reports of armed conflicts arising from the refusal of Armenians to become Turkish conscripts and surrender their arms.
It is now rumored that the important city of Van is besieged by Armenian guerrilla bands in great force. In Feitun the bands are said to exceed 20,000 in number, and they are reported to have defeated all the Turkish troops sent against them, causing the Turks heavy losses.
A dispatch received here from Constantinople says that the Turkish cruiser Goeben was penetrated by a shell at her water line during the recent bombardment of the Dardanelles by the allied Anglo-French fleet. The damage inflicted is described as serious.
The Goeben is one of the two German cruisers taken over by Turkey after the outbreak of the war.”
20 - “The Washington Post - Nov. 13th, 1914”
Armenians Join Russians And 20,000 Scatter Turks Near Feitun
Deal Blow To Turks
Russians Scatter a Big Army Occupying Batumi Valley – Are Near Erzurum Fortress
British Capture Turkish Torpedo Boat and Czar’s Troops Damage the Former German Cruiser Goeben – Americans Join Russians – 20,000 Defeated
London, Nov. 12th – The Russian Army of Armenia, whose base is on Kars, Transcaucasia, is approaching the Turkish fortress of Erzurum. A dispatch from Petrograd says:
“A graphic account has been received here of the demise of the Russian transport Truth, which was scuttled rather than surrendered to the Turkish cruiser Goeben. When called upon to surrender, her captain steered the Truth for the shore, opened the valves and blew a hole in the bottom of the vessel.
Sailors Sing as Ship Sinks
Lt. Ragowsky perished while attempting to fire off a second round of explosives. Part of the crew got off in boats, while others jumped into the water, to be picked up by Turkish ships.
‘The ship’s chaplain and a handful of men stayed aboard. As the ship went down, the chaplain was seen on deck giving his blessing to the men, who remained about him cheering and singing the national anthem.’
A Turkish torpedo boat which escaped from the Dardanelles has been captured off Tenedos, an island five miles off the northwest coast of Asia Minor, according to an Athens dispatch.
An Amsterdam dispatch says the Kaiser has ordered that all Mohammedans captured from the allied armies be sent to Constantinople to serve in the Turkish Army
Austrian Officers for Turkey
A telegram from Bucharest, Romania, says that Halil Bey, uncle of Enver Bey, the leader of the Young Turks, has arrived there on a special mission in behalf of Turkey.
Rome – Nov. 12th - Advices from Constantinople say that the Ottoman Army still lacks 700 officers and that the authorities at Berlin were requested to supply them. Berlin replied that it would be impossible to send all Germans but would supplement them with Austrians, who would travel in Constantinople individually as civilians. Petrograd, Nov. 12 – A dispatch received here from Constantinople says that the Turkish cruiser Goeben was penetrated by a shell at her waterline during the recent bombardment of the Dardanelles by the allied Anglo-French fleet. The damage inflicted is described as serious.
Russians Take Many Turks
An official communication from the general staff of the Caucasian army under date of Nov. 10, says:
Small skirmishes in the region beyond Tchoruk River is the neighborhood of the province of Batumi has occurred. “We maintained our position at Koprukent. Turkish attempts to envelope many prisoners and large quantities of ammunition. We have occupied all of the valley of the Alaschkertska.
Armenians Fighting the Turks
“In several towns occupied by the Russians the Armenian students have shown themselves ready to join the invading army. Reports tell of armed conflicts arising from the refusal of Armenians to become Turkish conscripts and surrender their arms. It is now rumored that the important city of Van is besieged by Armenian guerrilla bands in great force. In Feitun the Armenians are said to exceed 20,000 in number and they are reported to have defeated all the Turkish Troops sent against them causing the Turks heavy losses.“
The Above Comments Also Sent To Rafael Medoff via the Online Form Here at "Forward, The Jewish Daily"
Read Full Post !
To: store-news@amazon.com
Sent: Friday, June 22,
Subject: Amazon.com recommends Ambassador Morgenthau's Story and More
Dear Sir,
a. Thank you for your reminder, but you should know better that 95% or more of the contents of "some of the books" you advertise, particularly on Cyprus and Armenian cause is a GIGANTIC DISTORTION, FABRICATION and SLANDER. Yair Aaron for example; has not even consulted Turkish Jewish sources!
b- I have just drafted a book in English to prove the contrary of the several lies, using primarily Turcophobia sources, so it is not what I say, but what has been written already and left to dust
c- I know much very well, that you may be well forced to sell only what is approved by the Armenian Diaspora, and avoid the appearance of any undeniable documentation to scholarly debate the validity of the imaginary accusation and grand-ma stories including books of some Turkish turncoats, who sell their honor and decency to lying and slandering.
I well know Sirs, that you have to play the tune of Genocide Fanfaronade and keep yourself "safe" by “obeying orders". If I have jumped into any wrong conclusion or prejudices, and you have that courage in USA (?) please drop me a note so that we can sit together and talk as "men defending truths".
Anyway thanks
Sukru S. Aya
Read Full Post !
On this page we'll take a look at the peculiarities of Ambassador Henry Morgenthau's "Story" book.
This is the terribly racist book that Prof. Roger Smith actually referred to as reliable history in an April 2005 "genocide" conference held in New York's Fordham University. Let's give just one example of the delights within this literary "masterpiece": . . .
"One day I was discussing these proceedings with a responsible Turkish official, who was describing the tortures inflicted. He made no secret of the fact that the Government had instigated them, and, like an Turks of the official classes, he enthusiastically approved this treatment of the detested race. This official told me that all these details were matters of nightly discussion at the headquarters of the Union and Progress Committee. Each new method of inflicting pain was hailed as a splendid discovery, and the regular attendants were constantly ransacking their brains in the effort to devise some new torment. He told me that they even delved into the records of the Spanish Inquisition and other historic institutions of torture and adopted all the suggestions found there. He did not tell me who carried off the prize in this gruesome competition, but common reputation throughout Armenia gave a preeminent infamy to Djevdet Bey, the Vali of Van, whose activities in that section I have already described. All through this country Djevdet was generally known as the "horseshoer of Bashkale" for this connoisseur in torture had invented what was perhaps the masterpiece of all — that of nailing horseshoes to the feet of his Armenian victims." (Chapter XXIV, page 307)
Ever notice the absence of names in testimony as the above? Who was this "responsible Turkish official," and why would he have been so open about discussing internal matters with a hostile foreign agent? Secondly, if he "enthusiastically approved" the described tortures, why would that have made him "responsible"? Thirdly, is this what a courtroom of law or conscience of a good human being would call, "hearsay"?
Ambassador Morgenthau attempted to make the Turks as monstrous as possible. The attorney-ambassador allowed his Armenian assistants significant output, and his motives for demonization have been examined elsewhere in the site. (See links at page bottom.) But for Morgenthau to have written such fabricated material as the above was truly unconscionable. What kind of a man would be so bereft of morals to record such defamatory and horrible lies, as if they actually had taken place?
And what kind of man would be so bereft of morals as to repeat these disgusting stories in this day and age, as Peter Balakian gleefully did at every opportunity in his "Burning Tigris" abomination? (Mr. Balakian pointed to this horseshoe-nailing business above, among so many others.)
Prof. Sidney Fay, 1925: "Hardly a word of truth"
Excerpted from:
Harry E. Barnes, Genesis of the World War (New York: Knopf, 1926), pp. 241-247:
[begin quote]:
This luxuriant and voluptuous legend was not only the chief point in the Allied propaganda against Germany after the publication of Mr. Morgenthau’s book, but it has also been tacitly accepted by Mr. Asquith in his apology, and solemnly repeated by Bourgeois and Pages in the standard conventional French work, both published since the facts have been available which demonstrate that the above tale is a complete fabrication. The myth has been subjected to withering criticism by Professor Sidney B. Fay in the Kriegschuldfrage for May, 1925:
From His "Truly," Henry Morgenthau
The contemporary documents now available prove conclusively that there is hardly a word of truth in Mr. Morgenthau’s assertions, either as to (a) the persons present, (b) the Kaiser’s attitude toward delay, (c) the real reasons for delay, or (d) the alleged selling of securities in anticipation of war. In fact his assertions are rather the direct opposite of the truth.
a) As to the persons present, it is certainly not true that “Nearly all the important ambassadors attended.” They were all at their posts with the exception of Wangenheim, himself, and it is not certain that he even saw the Kaiser. Moltke was away taking a cure at Karlsbad, and Tirpitz was on a vacation in Switzerland. Jagow was also in Switzerland on a honey-moon and did not return until July 6. Ballin, the head of the Hamburg-American Line, who was absent from Berlin in the early part of July at a health resort, does not appear to have had any information until July 20, that there was a possible danger of warlike complications. Krupp v. Bohlen-Halbach, the head of the great munition works, was not at Potsdam on July 5, but saw the Emperor William next day at Kiel as the Emperor was departing for his Northern cruise. Nor is there any evidence that they were gathered at Potsdam on July 5 any of the others who were “necessary to German war preparations.” The only persons with whom the Kaiser conferred on July 5, at Potsdam after his lunch with the Austrian Ambassador, were Bethmann-Hollweg, the Chancellor, Falkenhayn, the Prussian Minister of War, and certain routine subordinate officials.
b) It is certainly not true that the Kaiser wished Austria to delay for two weeks whatever action she thought she must take against Serbia in order to give the German Bankers time to sell their foreign securities. There is abundant proof to indicate that Emperor William wished Austria to act quickly while the sentiment of Europe, shocked by the horrible crime at Sarajevo, was still in sympathy with the Habsburgs and indignant at regicide Serbs. As he wrote in a marginal note, "Matters must be cleared up with the Serbs, and that soon."
c) The real reasons for the delay of two weeks between July 5 and 23, was not to give the German bankers two weeks to sell their foreign securities. The real reasons for delay were wholly due to Austria, and not to Germany. They were mainly two, and are repeatedly referred to in the German and Austrian documents which were published in 1919. The first was that Berchtold, the Austro-Hungarian Minister of Foreign Affairs, could not act against Serbia until he had secured the consent of Tisza, the Premier of Hungary. It took two weeks to win Tisza over from his original attitude of opposition to violent action against Serbia. The second, and by far the most important reason for the final delay, was the fact that Berchtold did not want to present the ultimatum to Serbia until it was certain that Poincaré and Viviani had left Petrograd and were inaccessible upon the high seas returning to France. For otherwise Russia, under the influence of the “champagne mood” of the Franco-Russian toasts and the chauvinism of Poincaré, Iswolski, and the Grand Duke Nicholas gathered at Petrograd, would be much more likely to intervene to support Serbia with military force, and so Austria’s action against Serbia would less easily be "localized."
d) In regard to Germany’s alleged selling of securities in anticipation of war, if one follows Mr. Morgenthau’s suggestion and examines the quotations on the New York Stock Exchange during these weeks, and reads the accompanying articles in the New York Times, one does not find a shred of evidence, either in the price of stocks or the volume of sales, that large blocks of German holdings were being secretly unloaded and depressing the New York market during these two weeks. The stocks that he mentioned declined only slightly or not at all; moreover, such declines as did take place were only such as were to be naturally expected from the general trend downward which had been taking place since January, or are quite satisfactorily explained by local American conditions, such as the publication of an adverse report of the Interstate Commerce Commission. Here are the facts. The amazing slump in Union Pacific from 155 ½ to 127 ½ reported by Mr. Morgenthau represented in fact an actual rise of a couple of points in the value of this stock. Union Pacific sold “ex-dividend” and “ex-rights” on July 20; the dividend and accompanying rights were worth 30 5/8, which meant that shares ought to have sold on July 22nd at 125 ¾. In reality they sold at 127 ½; that is, at the end of the two weeks” period which it is asserted that there was “inside selling” from Berlin, Union Pacific, instead of being depressed, was actually selling two points higher.
Baltimore and Ohio, Canadian Pacific, and Northern Pacific did in fact slump on July 14, and there was evidence of selling orders from Europe. But this is to be explained, partly by the fact that Baltimore and Ohio had been already falling steadily since January, and partly to the very depressing influence exercised on all railroad shares by the sharply adverse report on the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad, which was published by the Interstate Commerce Commission. The comment of the New York Times of July 15, is significant: "Stocks which have lately displayed a stable character in the face of great weakness of particular issues could not stand up under such selling as occurred in New Haven and some others today. There were times when it looked as though the entire market was in a fair way to slump heavily, and only brisk short covering toward the close prevented many sharp net declines. For its own account, or on orders from this side, Europe was an unusually large seller of stocks in this market. The cable told that a very unfavorable impression had been created by the Commerce Commission’s New Haven report. The European attitude toward American securities is naturally affected by such official denunciations of the way in which an important railway property has been handled."
Most extraordinary is Mr. Morgenthau’s assertion about United States Steel Common. He says that between July 5th and 22nd it fell from 61 to 51 ½. The real fact, as any one may verify from the Stock Market reports for himself, is that Steel during these two weeks never fell below 59 5/8, and on July 22nd was almost exactly the same as two weeks earlier.
When the facts are examined, therefore, it does not appear that the New York Stock Market can afford much confirmation to Mr. Morgenthau’s myth of German bankers demanding a two weeks respite in which to turn American securities into gold in preparation for a world war which they had already plotted to bring about.
As Mr. Morgenthau has persistently refused to offer any explanation or justification of his "story" or to answer written inquiries as to his grounds for believing it authentic, we are left to pure conjecture in the circumstances. It appears highly doubtful to the present writer that Mr. Morgenthau ever heard of the Potsdam legend while resident in Turkey. It would seem inconceivable that he could have withheld such important information for nearly four years. The present writer has been directly informed by the Kaiser that Wangenheim did not see him in July, 1914. We know that Mr. Morgenthau’s book was not written by himself, but by Mr. Burton J. Hendrick, who later distinguished himself as the editor of the Page letters. We shall await with interest Mr. Hendrick’s explanation of the genesis of the Potsdam fiction as it was composed for Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story.
[end quote]
Holdwater: It sure would have been great if Burton Hendrick had been cornered during the 1920s to explain himself. But the immoral ghostwriter had a huge slice of the profit-sharing pie, as Prof. Heath Lowry exposed, and it would have been doubtful that Hendrick would have come clean.
You'll note not a word was wasted on Morgenthau's treatment of the Turks, in the criticism above. (As Pauline Kael aptly noted in her film review of MIDNIGHT EXPRESS, "Who wants to defend Turks?" This was true in 1978, as it was true in 1925, and still true today.)
But I think that's just as well. The reader can get an excellent idea as to Henry Morgenthau's penchant for truth-telling, regarding other matters of history, and the sale of securities. And to think this is the man whom Prof. Levon Marashlian defended, telling us Morgenthau's testimony was "unimpeachable."
Thanks to Conan, and to this site: gwpda.org/comment/morgencritique.htm.
Morgenthau's "Story": A Blueprint for Racism?
Mustafa Artun
Opinion, May 2003, The Turkish Times
Peter Balakian edited the reissue
Of all the books used by the Armenian propagandists and their sympathizers to vilify Turkey, arguably the most often-quoted is Ambassador Morgenthau's Story by Henry Morgenthau who served as the American ambassador in Istanbul for twenty-six months from 1913 to 1916. First published in 1918, the book has been reprinted numerous times over the years. A new edition, edited by a leading Armenian propagandist, Peter Balakian, is being published this year with good deal of publicity fanfare. The book has been a standard reference for most of the so-called "scholarly" publications as well as journal and newspaper articles on the subject. The latest addition to the long list of publications that have utilized Ambassador Morgenthau's Story as if it were an objective and factual account of the events in 1915 is Samantha Power's A Problem From Hell: America in the Age of Genocide which won the prestigious Pulitzer Prize in 2003. In her book, Power portrays Morgenthau as a heroic figure who strove to stop the killing of the innocent Armenians at the hands of the Ottoman Turks. Equally important is the fact that whenever a resolution to condemn Turkey is introduced in state legislatures or at the U.S. Congress, Morgenthau's book is presented as prima facie evidence in support of the Armenian claims.
That Ambassador Morgenthau's Story has been a powerful arsenal in the Armenian propaganda machine against Turkey in the U.S. is not surprising. After all, Morgenthau was appointed by President Wilson to be the official representative of this country in the Ottoman Empire. Ambassadors are normally expected to provide factual, honest, and unbiased reporting about the countries where they serve.
Consequently, Ambassador Morgenthau's book, which seeks to indict the Young Turk leadership of having engaged in a systematic campaign of violence against the Armenians, carries the official stamp of credibility. What makes the book even more enticing for those who seek to slander Turkey is that Morgenthau's "story" includes lengthy passages about the author's alleged conversations with the leading Young Turk officials such as Talat Pasha where they confess their plans to annihilate the Armenians to the American Ambassador.
Although Morgenthau's book is widely quoted and used as an important and reliable source on the Armenian question, few seem to take notice its blatantly racist contents. In fact, Ambassador Morgenthau's Story is littered with the most appalling and demeaning characterizations of the Turks, their history and culture. For Morgenthau, the Turk is "psychologically primitive" (p.236) and a "bully and a coward" who can be "brave as a lion when things are going his way, but cringing, abject, and nerveless when reverses are overwhelming him" (p. 275)*. According to the Ambassador, the Turks "like most primitive peoples, wear their emotions on the surface" (p.195) and that the "basic fact underlying the Turkish mentality is its utter contempt for other races" (p. 276). Morgenthau describes the Turks variously as "inarticulate, ignorant, and poverty-ridden slaves" (p. 13), "barbarous" (p.147), "brutal" (p.149), "ragged and unkempt" (p. 276), and "parasites" (p.280). The Ambassador's unabashed hatred of all things Turkish leads him to make the following observation: "The descendants of Osman hardly resemble any people I have ever known. They do not hate, they do not love; they have no lasting animosities or affections. They only fear" (p.99).
Morgenthau's view of Turkish history and the treatment of non-Muslim communities in the Ottoman Empire offer further glimpses into his distorted and biased mindset. He notes, for example, "after five hundred years' of close contact with European civilization, the Turk remained precisely the same individual as the one who had emerged from the steppes of Asia in the Middle Ages" (p. 284). According to the author, when Turks conquered a territory, they "found it occupied by a certain number of camels, horses, buffaloes, dogs, swine, and human beings. Of all these living things the object that physically most resembled themselves they regarded as the least important" (p. 279). Even the millet system, long regarded by most historians as an important mechanism for peaceful coexistence among different ethnic and religious groups in the Ottoman Empire, does not escape the Ambassador's wrath: "The sultans similarly erected the several peoples" he writes "such as the Greeks and the Armenians into separate 'millets' or nations, not because they desired to promote their independence and welfare, but because they regarded them as vermin" (p. 280). In contrast to his utter disdain for the Turks, Morgenthau has nothing but praise for the Armenians. "The Armenians," he writes, "are known for their industry, their intelligence, and their decent and orderly lives. They are so superior to the Turks intellectually and morally" (p. 287). According to the author, the Armenians lived like "a little island of Christians surrounded by backward peoples of hostile religion and hostile race" (p. 288). And the Ambassador enthusiastically declares that like the Arabs who had revolted against the Ottomans in World War I, the Greeks and the Armenians "would also have welcomed an opportunity to strengthen the hands of the Allies" (p.227). Ambassador Morgenthau's Story stands as one of the remarkable documents of early 20th century — not for its value as an objective piece of historical writing, as the Armenian propagandists and their supporters claim, but for revealing the deep-rooted racist outlook of a person who managed to reach one of the highest and most prestigious positions in the U.S. government. It is telling that at a time when racism has become punishable by law in this country, a book that is filled with appalling racist remarks continues to be glorified in the American academia, intellectual circles, and legislative bodies by Armenians and their sympathizers determined to distort history and slander the Turks at any cost.
*All the quotes are from Henry Morgenthau, Ambassador Morgenthau's Story (New York: Doubleday, Page and Company, 1918).
************************************
© Holdwater
tallarmeniantale.com/morgenthau-storyLIES.htm
************************************
Read Full Post !
