
18 March 2011
*Maxime Gauin
ABSTRACT
To maintain the use of more than dubious sources (the “Andonian documents” and Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story), the Memoirs of Count Bernstorff, or more exactly three short quotations, were used by a part of the Armenian side as a corroborative proof. However, two of the three quotations from these Memoirs are tendentiously extracted of their context, and the third is just an unreliable opinion.
KEYWORDS
Andonian, Dadrian, Bersntorff, genocide, Morgenthau, Ternon, Dadrian. .
From the 1980’s, some Armenian and pro-Armenian writers refer to the Memoirs of Count Johann Heinrich von Bernstorff, ambassador of Germany in Ottoman Empire from 1917 to 1918, as a complementary evidence of the alleged intention of CUP government to extermination Ottoman Armenians, so to support the “genocide” label. This use appeared in a precise context: the desperate attempts to defend the authenticity of crude forgeries, i.e. the “Andonian documents” [1] then the Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story. [2] These attempts were made by the Armenian-American sociologist Vahakn N. Dadrian [3] (currently director of the Zoryan Institute, a think-tank close to Armenian Revolutionary Federation [ARF], after his forced retirement from State University of New York because sexual harassment) and his French follower, the surgeon Yves Ternon [4], also a great friend of ARF, who acknowledges to have been leaded on Armenian issue only by Armenian nationalist groups or individuals, and to have always refused any contact with Turkish historians [5]. Both Mr. Dadrian’s and Mr. Ternon’s argumentations on Andonian and Morgenthau are, as a whole, less than convincing [6], that is why even Armenian and pro-Armenian historians raised serious doubts on the authenticity of “Andonian telegrams” [7]; but the goal of this paper is limited to the misuse of Bernstorff’s Memoirs, published in German in 1935, and translated into English one year later. [8]
The Quotations
In the 1980’s, Mrs. Dadrian and Ternon used one quotation of Memoirs of Count Bernstorff, to corroborate the allegations of Aram Andonian’s forged documents:
“When I kept on pestering him about the Armenian question, he once said with a smile: ‘What on earth do you want? The question is settled, there are no more Armenians,’ […].”
In 1999, Mr. Dadrian used the same quotation to defend the Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story, arguing that “German ambassador Bernstorff in his memoirs quotes Talât almost in identical terms”. [9]
No surprisingly, the quotation was used again, later, by others. [10]
In 1995, Mr. Dadrian used also two other quotations, in a rather different context, but also to support the “genocide” allegation [11]:
“His complicity in the Armenian crime he [Talat] atoned for his death.”
“Armenia [= Eastern Anatolia] where the Turks have systematically trying to exterminate the Christian population.”
It is hardly doubtful that if such sentences are accepted are face value, with such interpretation, they constitute a clear indication in favor of the “genocide” label, even if they represent a tiny part of the Memoirs of Count Bernstorff. Both Andonian’s and Morgenthau’s books depict Talat as a ferocious criminal; in the perspective of Mr. Dadrian and Mr. Ternon, the Memoirs of Count Bernstorff corroborate partially such an enormous allegations. However, a more attentive look gives a quite different version.
Critique
The most evident distortion is the first and the most used (“When I kept on pestering him about the Armenian question, he once said with a smile: ‘What on earth do you want? The question is settled, there are no more Armenians’”). The context clarifies the meaning of Bernstorff :
“In this connection an excellent instance is the Grand Vizier, Talaat Pasha, subsequently murdered by an Armenian in Berlin, whom I learnt to respect and liked during my service in Constantinople. A man of absolute integrity, he had unusual gifts that enabled him to climb the steep ascent from the position of telegraph official to that of leading statesman, and a statesman he was in the truest sense of the word. There was not a sign of the parvenu in his behaviour or ideas. As Grand Vizier, Talaat Pasha always gave the impression of a ‘grand seigneur’, and his political conceptions were unencumbered by any pettiness. I never knew any Turk who could fairly be compared with him. He did indeed often promise me more than he could perform. […] However that may be, Talaat usually recognized the right way, and as time went on — and especially after every visit to Europe, he became more of a match for his mighty task. If any statesman could have succeeded in reforming the old Ottoman Empire, it would have been Talaat Pasha, provided that he had been able to consolidate his power and influence. As I have mentioned above, I am not referring to the Turkish Republic of today, with which I unfortunately have no acquaintance.
This constant and considerable contrast between desire and achievement induced in the Grand Vizier a delightful blend of skepticism and gentle cynicism, which increased the charm of that attractive personality. When I kept on pestering him about the Armenian question, he once said with a smile: ‘What on earth do you want? The question is settled, there are no more Armenians,’ a reply which, while admitting his own complicity in the crime, hinted that the European accounts might be exaggerated.” [12]
The most comprehensive quotation is almost self-explanatory:
1) Unlike in Andonian’s forged documents and in Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story, Talat is not depicted by Bernstorff as a monster, a bloody villain, but, quite the contrary, as a moderate and responsible “statesman”.
2) The sentence “The question is settled, there are no more Armenians” is an expression of black humor, criticizing the distorted narrative of pro-Armenian propaganda.
3) Bernstorff does not present Talat as the supervisor of crimes perpetrated against Armenian civilians, but as an “accomplice”.
What Bernstorff means by “complicity” is explained by the context of the second misused quotation:
“His complicity in the Armenian crime he atoned for his death. On this matter he was an offspring of his nation. The statesmen of other lands have often been equally guilty in not opposing and rebuking the prejudices of their fellow-citizens, and it would be unjust to apply European standards to a Turkish statesman, even to one of the caliber of Talaat Pasha.” [13]
So, it is clear that Bernstorff blamed Talat for his incapacity to prevent atrocities committed by some Turks, Kurds, Circassians and Arabs against displaced Armenians, not for any criminal designs against these exiles.
Arrived to this point, let’s notice that the Memoirs of General Otto Liman von Sanders, chief of German military mission in Ottoman Empire (1913-1918), contain also great a praising of Talat’s character, as well as a rebuttal of central government’s guilty in atrocities committed against a part of displaced Armenians. [14]
The third and last quotation (“Armenia [= Eastern Anatolia] where the Turks have systematically trying to exterminate the Christian population” in 1915-1916) is nor distorted neither tendentiously extracted of its context, and so is the single which could be used to support the “genocide” label — however a strange “genocide”, concerning only Armenians of Eastern Anatolia, and not desired by the actual Ottoman central authorities, contrary to all the literature supporting such a label for the Armenian case. Anyway, the Memoirs of Count Bernstorff, like any other historical source, have to be submitted to internal and external critiques.
Bernstorff was not in Turkey but in USA during the Armenian displacement of 1915-1916; as ambassador in Ottoman Empire, he did quit Istanbul; nowhere in his Memoirs, he claims to have carried a particular investigation on 1915-1916 events, for instance in interviewing German officials of embassy and consulates; nowhere Bernstorff mentions the fifth-column role played from the beginning of WWI Armenian revolutionaries, a fact well documented in German sources [15]; despite his praising of Talat Pasha, Bernstorff’s prejudices about Oriental peoples (surely not worse than the average of his time, that is right) and his lack of curiosity for Turkey (he acknowledges to know roughly nothing on Kemalist Republic) are clear in his book. No one of these facts shows Bernstorff as a first-choice witness for the tragedy of 1915-1916.
More important is the fact that several German witnesses, who were in Eastern Anatolia during WWI, have a quite different version of the story. Especially, General Felix Guse argued that the goal of the forced displacement was to crush the numerous, and coordinated, rebellions of Armenian revolutionary committees which started as early as 1914; and that the atrocities against displaced Armenians were not systematic. [16] General Friedrich Bronsart von Schellendorf supported the same conclusions, and stressed on the absence of criminal designs in Talat’s policy vis-à-vis the Armenians. [17] Heinrich Bergfeld, German consul in Trabzon, whose reports are also used highly selectively by Armenian and pro-Armenian writers — including Mr. Ternon —, concluded, too, that the fate of Armenian deportees was extremely variable, depending on the quality of the escort. [18] The findings of Ernst Jäckh, a German scholar who carried out unofficial missions for German government in Ottoman Empire during WWI, corroborate these conclusions. [19]
Similarly, the journalists Gustav Hjalmar Pravitz (Swedish), George Abel Schreiner (American), and Stefan Steiner (Austrian), who investigated in eastern Anatolia — and even, for the first, in Arab provinces — testified that there was no systematic destruction of Armenians; all three stressed that bureaucratic ineptness and lack of relevant material were mostly responsible for the human losses, and that allegations of atrocities widely diffused in Western countries contained a substantial part of inventions and exaggerations. [20] Stefan Steiner witnessed also the war crimes of Armenian volunteers against Turkish civilians in 1918. [21]
Even in the Blue Book published in 1916 by the Bryce-Toynbee team [22], one can find at least one Western testimony, the statement of the missionary Mary L. Graffam, rejecting explicitly the allegation of systematic extermination, as well as any blame on top-rank Ottoman officials or Ottoman government. [23] Unlike the majority of sources used in the work of “war propaganda” (according to Arnold J. Tonybee’s proper words [24]), Graffam testified only on what she saw, and interviewed both Turks and Armenians.
The major Edward W. C. Noel, sent in 1919 to Anatolia by British government to fight the Kemalists, concluded, after investigation, that Turkish atrocities against Armenians during WWI were “isolated” — at least in the region where he travelled —, and added that the war crimes of Armenian and Nestorian volunteers against Kurds in 1916 were — at least in his region, one more time — worse and more “systematic”. [25]
So, even in neglecting the considerable body of Ottoman evidence against the charge of systematic extermination [26] and the failure of Malta’s British prosecutor to find any evidence for this charge [27], and in focusing on Western sources, the conclusion imposed by an impartial study is that Bernstorff’s allegation is prejudiced and not convincing.
Conclusion
In attempting to save, against all the evidence, the authenticity of crude forgeries, two of the most prominent supporters of “Armenian genocide” label misused of the Memoirs of Count Bernstorff, by distorted quotations and the elevation of one unreliable opinion until the rank of evidence. Both these authors are perfectly able to understand that they do not make an honest and scholar use of Bernstorff’s book. But such a finding will surprise nobody familiarized with Mr. Dadrian’s and Mr. Ternon’s selective, and in several cases purely misleading, use of sources. [28]
The scholar study of Armenian issue, a highly sensitive and politicized topic, aggravated far after 1916 by Armenian terrorism and use of both verbal and physical violence — until an attempt of murder by explosives — against historians who disagree with “genocide” allegation [29], needs a special attention to the classical duties of historical work. The shortcomings are certainly not coming from the Armenian side only, but the recurrent use of notorious forgeries — like the “Andonian documents”, the Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story, or Mevlanzade Rifat’s book — and seriously dishonest quotations is the exclusivity of Armenian and pro-Armenian authors. [30] A real debate on the tragedy of 1915-1916 requests that scholars calling “genocide” the fate of Ottoman Armenians express clearly and definitely their condemnation of misleading propaganda; and their acceptance that those who challenge the charge of “genocide” are not necessarily lackeys of the Turkish government, mislead idiots or morally obtuse individuals. Unfortunately, excepted Hilmar Kaiser, few supporters of “Armenian genocide” label have such a scholar level. The basic fact that, since 1915, no one conclusive evidence was showed to support the charge of planned extermination [31] and, on the other hand, the strong proofs that Ottoman government severely punished several hundreds of Muslims who believed wrongly that everything was permitted during the forced displacement [32], as well as positive measures — like the protective policy of Djemal Pasha (Cemal Paşa), third figure of CUP regime, in favor of Armenian exiles [33] or the big expenses of central government for them [34] —, should however incite to humility and prudence.
The needed reconciliation between Turks and Armenian implies an impartial study of the past and a mutual, full condemnation of crimes committed from both sides. Until today, the huge historical literature “contains frequently considerable historical distortions, which takes away any value to it,” as pointed correctly Prof. Xavier de Planhol, one of the best scholars of Turkish studies. [35]The misuse of Memoirs of Count Bernstorff is just one distortion among so many others.
*Maxime Gauin is a visiting researcher at USAK.
References:
1) The most comprehensive demonstration on Andonian’s fake documents is: Şinasi Orel and Sürreya Yuca, The Talât Pasha Telegrams. Historical Fact or Armenian Fiction?, Nicosia: K. Rüstem & Brothers, 1986 (first edition in Turkish, Ankara, TTK, 1983); it is summarized in Türkkaya Ataöv, The Andonian “documents” attributed to Talat Pasha are Forgeries!, Ankara University Press, 1984 and Jean Loyrette’s argumentation for Orly attack’s trial: Terrorist attack at Orly: Statements and Evidence Presented at the Trial. February 19 - March 2 1985, Ankara University Press, 1985.
2) On this book, see Heath Lowry, The Story Behind Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story, Istanbul: The Isis Press, 1990; see also Şükrü Aya, The Genocide of Truth Continues… But Facts Tell the Truth, Istanbul: Derin Yayinevi, 2010; Harry Elmer Barnes, The Genesis of the World War, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1926, pp. 241-247; C. Hartley Grattan, Why We Fought, New York: The Vanguard Press, 1929, pp. 250-251; George Abel Schreiner, The Craft Sinister, New York: G. Albert Geyer, 1920, pp. XXI and 125-126.
3) “The Naim-Andonian Documents on the World War I Destruction of Ottoman Armenians: The Anatomy of a Genocide,” International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. XVIII, Issue 3, August 1986.
4) Yves Ternon, Enquête sur la négation d’un génocide, Marseille: Parenthèses, 1989.
5) Yves Ternon, Les Arméniens. Histoire d’un génocide, Paris: Le Seuil, 1977, second edition, 1996 (English translation: The Armenians. History of a Genocide, New York, St Vartan’s Press, 1984).
6) Michael M. Gunter, “Gunter Response to Dadrian Article,” International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, Volume 19, Issue 4, November 1987, pp. 523-524; “A Reply to Judith Tucker’s Excperpt of Vahakn Dadrian's Article,” id., Volume 40, Issue 4, Autumn 2008, pp. 728-729; Guenter Lewy, The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey, Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2005, pp. 65-73 and 140-142; Jean-Louis Mattei, Belgelerle Büyük Ermenistan Peşinde Ermeni Komiteleri, Ankara: Bilgi Yayinevi, 2008.
7) For instance: Christopher Walker, “World War I and the Armenian Genocide,” in Richard G. Hovannisian, (ed.) The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Time, New York: St Martin’s Press, 1997, p. 247.
8) Erinnerungen und Briefe, Zurich: Polygraph Verlag, 1935; Memoirs of Count Bernstorff, New York: Random House, 1936 (translated from German by Eric Sutton); Whitefish (USA): Kessinger Publishing, 2010.
9) V. N. Dadrian, The Key Elements of the Turkish Denial of the Armenian Genocide: a Case Study of Distortion and Falsification, Cambridge (Massachusetts)-Toronto: Zoryan Institute, 1999, p. 41.
10) For instance: http://www.imprescriptible.fr/citations/diplomates
11) V. N. Dadrian, The History of the Armenian Genocide, Providence: Berghahn Books, 2004, p. 211, n. 19 (1st edition, 1995).
12) Memoirs of Count Bernstorff, op. cit., pp. 175-176.
13) Memoirs of Count Bernstorff, op. cit., p. 180.
14) Ottoman Liman von Sanders, Cinq ans de Turquie, Paris: Payot, 1923 (translated from German by Major Mabille), pp. 13 and 185 (original version: Fünf Jahre Türkei, Berlin, A. Scherl, 1920 ; English translation: Five Years in Turkey, Anapolis, United States Naval Institute, 1927; Naval & Military Press Publications, 2005).
15) Edward J. Erickson, “The Armenians and Ottoman Military Policy,” War in History, Volume XV, Issue 2, Spring 2008, pp. 141-167 ; Guenter Lewy, op. cit., pp. 93-94, 99 and 117.
16) Felix Guse, »Der Armenien Aufstand 1915 und seine Folgen«, Wissen und Wehr, Volume VI, 1925, pp. 609-621.
17) Friedrich Bronsart von Schellendorf, »Ein Zeugnis für Talaat Pascha«, Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, 24 July 1921.
18) Guenter Lewy, op. cit., pp. 145-146 et 178-182; Hikmet Özdemir and alii, Ermeniler: Sürgün ve Göç, Ankara, TTK, 2004, pp. 77-82.
19) Ernest Jackh (Ernst Jäckh), The Rising Crescent, New York-Toronto: Farrar & Rinehart, 1944, pp. 43-45, 134 and 163.
20) Gustav H. Pravitz, “Armeniernas läge,” Nya Dagligt Allehanda, 23 April 1917; George Abel Schreiner, op. cit., pp. 124-125; Stefan Steiner, “Armenië,” Algemeen Handelsblad, 25 May 1920 (I express my thanks to Michael van der Galiën for the translation).
21) Justin McCarthy, Death and Exile. The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims. 1821-1922, Princeton, Darwin Press, 1996, pp. 230 and 242, n. 107.
22) On the general methods of this propaganda team, see, for instance: Horace C. Peterson, Propaganda for War: The Campaign Against American Neutrality, 1914-1917, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1939, pp. 53-59; and Arthur Ponsonby, Falsehood in War Time, London: Unwin Brothers, 1928, pp. 78-82 and 128-134.
23) The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, London-New York-Toronto: Hodder & Stoughton, 1916, pp. 305-308. To understand why Graffam’s report is unfortunately not representative of the average level of this Blue Book, see Justin McCarthy, “Wellington House and the Turks,” in The Turks, Ankara: Yeni Türkiye, 2002, tome IV, pp. 457-467; Hikmet Özdemir, Arnold Toynbee’nin Ermeni Sorununa Bakışı, Ankara, 2005; James Morgan Read, Atrocity Propaganda. 1914-1919, New Haven-London: Yale University Press/Oxford University Press, 1941, pp. 221-222; and Ahmet Rüstem Bey, La Guerre mondiale et la question turco-arménienne, Berne: Stæmpfli & Cie, 1918, pp. 95-132.
24) Arnold J. Toynbee, The Western Question in Greece and Turkey, London-Bombay-Sydney, Constable & C°, 1922, p. 50.
25) Stanford J. Shaw, From Empire to Republic. The Turkish War of National Liberation, Ankara: TTK, 2000, tome II, p. 922.
26) For example: Kâmuran Gürün, The Armenian File, Istanbul, Türkiye iş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2007 (first edition in English, 1985), pp. 237-292; Hikmet Özdemir and Yusuf Sarınay, op. cit.; Şinasi Orel and Sürreya Yuca, op. cit.
27) Guenter Lewy, op. cit., pp. 125-126; Bilâl N. Şimşir, The Deportees of Malta and the Armenian Question, 2nd edition, Ankara, 2003 ; Salâhi R. Sonyel, “Armenian Deportations: A Re-Appraisal in the Light of New Documents,” Belleten, January 1972, pp. 59-60.
28) Mary Schaeffer Conroy, “Review of Vahakn N. Dadrian, Warrant for Genocide : Key Elements of Turco-Armenian Conflict,” The Social Science Journal, Volume XXXVII, Issue 3, July 2000, pp. 481-483; Edward J. Erickson, “Armenian Massacres, New Records Undercut Old Blame”, The Middle East Quarterly, Volume XIII, N° 3, Summer 2006 ; Clive Foss, “Book Review of Vahakn Dadrian, German Responsabilities in the Armenian Genocide,” The Institute for the Study of Genocide Newsletter, Autumn 1997, pp. 12-16; Hilmar Kaiser, “Germany and the Armenian Genocide, Part II: Reply to Vahakn N. Dadrian’s Response”, Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies, IX, 1996, pp. 135-40; Guenter Lewy, op. cit., pp. 46-89, 94 and 160-161; Georges de Maleville, La Tragédie arménienne de 1915, Paris: Lanore, 1988; Jeremy Salt, “Forging the Past: OUP and the Armenian Question,” Eurasia Critic, January 2010; Malcolm E. Yapp, “Book Review”, Middle Eastern Studies, Volume XXXII, Issue 4, October 1996, pp. 395-397.
29) Maria Çakırağa, Statement in Opposition to Parole of Hampig “Harry” Sassounian (C-88440), 2010; Michael M. Gunter, “Pursuing the Just Cause of their People”. A Study of Contemporary Armenian Terrorism, Westport-New York-London: Greenwood Press, 1986; Gaïdz Minassian, Guerre et terrorisme arméniens. 1972-1998, Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 2002; “Crude Bomb Explodes at UCLA Professor’s Home,” The Los Angeles Times, 4 October 1977, p. D1; “Armenians: Community in Turkey Worried Over Impact of Terrorism.” The Los Angeles Times, 12 May 1982, p. B26; “Armenian Terrorism: Near East Feud Rages in America,” The Washington Post, 17 May 1982, p. A1; “Press Clanger,” Times Higher Education, 29 March 1996; « Veinstein persiste mais en vain », Haïastan, June 2000, p. 10.
30) In addition to the above mentioned references, see Türkkaya Ataöv, Armenian Falsifications, New York: Okey, 2008; Cem Özgönül, Der Mythos Eines Völkermordes, Köln: Önel Verlag, 2005; Erman Şahin, “A Scrutiny of Akçam’s Version of History and the Armenian Genocide,” Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, Volume XXVIII, Issue 2, 2008, pp. 303-319; id., “Review Essay: The Armenian Question,” Middle East Policy, Volume XVII, N° 1, Spring 2010, pp. 144-157.
31) Guenter Lewy, passim.
32) Yusuf Halaçoğlu, The Story of 1915. What Happened to the Ottoman Armenians?, Ankara: TTK, 2008, pp. 82-87; Guenter Lewy, op. cit., pp. 111 and 113; Hikmet Özdemir and Yusuf Sarınay (ed.), Turkish-Armenian Conflict Documents, Ankara: TBMM, 2007, p. 261.
33) Guenter Lewy, op. cit., pp. 196-198 and 218-220.
34) Yusuf Halaçoğlu, op. cit., pp. 71-82.
35) Xavier de Planhol, Minorités en Islam. Géographie politique et sociale, Paris: Flammarion, 1997, p. 450, n. 144.
http://www.turkishweekly.net/article/402/the-misuse-of-memoirs-of-count-bernstorff-in-armenian-nationalist-publications.html
Turkish Weekly is an USAK Publication. USAK is the leading Ankara based Turkish think-tank.
.
18.3.11
3236) Misuse of “Memoirs of Count Bernstorff” in Armenian Nationalist Publications
19.1.09
2701) Armenian Question: Conflict, Trauma And Objectivity By Turkkaya Ataov
The Journal of Political and Military Sociology (Illinois, U.S.A.) printed in one of its recent (22/1, Summer 1994) issues five articles on the "Armenian question" by Professor Vahakn N. Dadrian, an Armenian-American researcher. it stated that four of the essays were "adapted" from form er prints elsewhere.1 Dr. Richard Faik, Professor of International Law and Practice at Princeton University, and Dr. Roger Smith, Professor of Government at the College of William and Maryand the "special guest editor" of this issue, present the topic seemingly in full agreement with author Dadrian . .
4.4.08
2416) The Kaiser Effect: What One Genocide Scholar Said (And Did Not Say) At Rutgers
NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. (A.W.) On March 28, the Armenian Club of Rutgers University hosted a lecture by Hilmar Kaiser at the Student Activities Center.
Kaiser received his PhD from the European University Institute in Florence, Italy. He specializes in Ottoman social and economic history as well as the Armenian genocide. He has done research in more than 60 archives worldwide, including the Ottoman Archives in Istanbul.
During the lecture, Kaiser presented an overview of the Armenian genocide, based mainly on his research in the Ottoman archives. In the days following the lecture, statements were disseminated over the internet about what Kaiser said at Rutgers, portraying him as a denier of the Armenian genocide.
Kaiser is known in the community for his controversial statements and for criticizing other genocide scholars, which he did at the Rutgers lecture. And while many scholars and readers may not agree with some of his analysis or conclusions on the genocide, at no point did Kaiser deny the genocide. He consistently used the term "Armenian genocide" when referring to 1915-16, clearly made the point that the massacres were centrally planned, and put the number of "losses" at 1-1.5 million. The Turkish members of the audience were anything but happy with Kaiser's documentation of the genocide and threw all kinds of denialist and revisionist arguments at him during the question and answer session.
Kaiser parts ways with many genocide scholars on the issue of when the decision to carry out the Armenian genocide was made. While most scholars talk about a blueprint for the massacres, or a specific date when the decision was made, Kaiser argues that there were not one but several decisions for mass murder, all centrally planned and executed.
Below, we provide the transcript of Kaiser's lecture, with the hope that it will set the record straight and generate a healthy discussion. Kaiser did not read from a prepared text. This transcript, shortened due to space constraints, is from a digital recording taken by Armenian Weekly editor Khatchig Mouradian.
The ARF and the Ottoman government The Armenian community is a democratic, complex and politically competitive community. And when I now say that the leading political party was the ARF, some in the community might be offended. I just reflect the views of the Ottoman Ministry of Interior and Ottoman Intelligence. The only political group that was seen as politically of any relevance was the ARF.
The Ottoman government approached the ARF and proposed an alliance, because the ARF was also present behind the Russian lines as a Russian political party in Trans-Caucasia. The offer was that the ARF should start attacking and sabotaging Russian lines of supply and communication, thereby facilitating the Ottoman victory and, in return, the Ottoman government would then grant them the political concession they denied the Armenian community for years.
Basically, the offer was, "You join the war on our side, take the risk, and then we promise you what we have denied you for years." So it wasn't really a good offer. What would happen to the Armenian community in Russia?
The ARF declined the offer and assured the Ottoman government that the Armenian community in the Ottoman Empire would faithfully serve the common Ottoman war cause, and the Armenians in Russia would serve the country they were citizens of. This was the decision. But there was a minority opinion [in the ARF] that was voted down. The minority opinion was a group of more radical ARF members who said, "OK, the Russians are coming. We support the advance and get the benefits." But this minority opinion was overvoted, and the party line was at every single time upheld, with even strong measures by the ARF leadership to assert the party line.
However, the internal communications of the meetings of the ARF had been compromised and the details of the minority opinion were within days available to Minister of Interior Talat. And the Ottoman government decided to take the minority opinion that had been voted down as the real policy of the ARF and began acting on it. They did this despite repeated intelligence reports from the Eastern provinces, from Erzerum, Van, Bitlis, and Kharpert, that the ARF and the Armenian community supported the war effort by answering to the draft much more faithfully to the Muslim population. They were supporting the regular units more than the Muslims and they were absolutely reliable.
Campaign of repression From October 1914 right into May 1915, the Ottoman government began a campaign of repression. Before the start of the war, the ARF had reactivated an earlier, secret, semi-clandestine armed wing of the party, the Self-Defense Organization. This was an organization that was created to protect Armenian villages in remote areas especially from attacks by tribal Kurdish groups, bandits, and other outrages that occurred regularly. Now this sounds like a huge organization, but per village, it was maybe 6-10 armed men, plus, regionally, some so-called "mobile units," another 10-12 people who would be rushed to this or that village. This was a defensive body that lacked heavy weapons and automatic weapons like machine guns, and was not capable to really strike.
The Ottoman government knew who the militants were, they began taking out local party leaders one by one and also tracking down the members of the organization, thereby trying to destroy it. This was very easy because in those days the winters in Armenia and Kurdistan were very severe in 1914-15, high snow, so there was no way for the militants to escape to the mountains and hide; and even if they were to leave the villages, there's a trace.
The ARF leadership, based in Van, decided that it had to put up with the situation.
And now comes a very important document, dated March 25, 1915. The document has been used by Justin McCarthy in the book The Van Rebellion, but it seems Professor McCarthy was so overworked that he could only use half the document. I use the other half. In the second part of the report by Cevdet, the governor, to Talat (there is not a single decision at Van that was not supervised and approved by the central authorities), it says that the Armenian population is entirely peaceful, calm, doing nothing; however, in reality they are rebels, they are only waiting for the Russians to come and then they will kill every Muslim.
Van At this point, the Ottoman government decided that it does not make a difference at all if an Armenian would be fulfilling his civic duties, obeying the law, or would be in open rebellion. He would be killed anyhow. On March 25, the Ottoman forces decided to attack the Armenian community in Van and wipe them out. It didn't work.
Several Armenian leaders sacrificed their life (Ishkhan and Arshag Vramian). Knowing that they would be murdered, they went to the other side to negotiate, to win time. They knew that they were on a suicide mission going to the other side to negotiate. Basically, the negotiator was going to his own executioner in order to win a day, or in Vramian's case, even a couple of hours. And then the defense started. It was a defense, not a rebellion. The defense was successful by accident.
The letter the Central Committee of ARF Van sent to the other Central Committees says, We have done everything to avoid a clash. The last moment has come, we will be killed, we will make our last stand. There was nothing we could do.
The party line was to hold out until the last moment. They said, The last moment has passed, we cannot hold out anymore. They explain to the rest of the party why they are doing this. Basically, what they said was, Farewell, there is no chance. We will just make a stand.
And indeed, the ARF, together with (this is one of the few moments of unity in Armenian history) Hnchagians and Ramgavars fought together and they survived. But had the Russian and Armenian volunteers arrived 24 hours late, it would have meant total disaster. The Ottomans did not know that they had overwhelmed the defenders.
Deportations At this point, the Ottoman government realized that it had failed to take out the outer defense unit in the area and probably in other areas. Therefore, my conclusion (I don't have a document that says this...) is that the only way to avoid the potential threat of Armenians aiding the Russians was to deport them. So in the last phase of the defense of Van, the Ottoman government decides the deportation of Armenians in the area of the Van province, adjacent to the Bitlis province and then in the northern Erzerum province, exactly on the front line.
In the middle of June, the head of the Third Army (that's the eastern front) decreed the deportation of all Armenians within the Third Army area. This adds Kharpert, Sivas, Dikranagert and Trebizond to the deportation. It's the bulk of the Armenian population.
At the end of July, the Ottoman government orders an immediate count of all Armenians empire-wide and at the same time orders the deportation of Armenians from the remaining provinces.
So what you have here is the successive waves of deportation that resulted, by the end of September, in the total uprooting of Armenians, with the exception of parts of Constantinople, Smyrna, Aleppo, and very small groups of Armenians in Antalya.
How were these deportation organized? Basically, they weren't organized at all in the beginning. They were just decreed. They said the local administration takes care of the welfare of the Armenians. There were no precise orders on how to secure the welfare of Armenians.
However, in a process that I would describe as "learning by doing," the ideal size of an Armenian deportation caravan was established. One thousand Armenians per deportation caravan was the best economy in the use of accompanying gendarme forces. If the deportation caravan shrinks considerably, the convoy is stopped and parked until a second convoy arrives that has shrunk as well. Then they merge to the 1,000 number. So what you have here is a filter, and the system of economy shows you that the deportation was already a form of destruction, extermination. The concern was about the economy, the best efficient use of the gendarmes or the militia who accompanied the deportees. And they didn't try to stop the shrinking, by the way.
You have to understand that these were Ottoman citizens, protected by Ottoman law. At no point in the entire time was the Ottoman penal code cancelled. The government was breaking Ottoman law in the process.
These people were then sent to Der Zor, which, as a desert district, had very weak infrastructure. What we see here is that in August/September, the Ottoman central government established a deportation administration in the Der Zor, Ras ul Ein, and along the Euphrates.
Andonian was not lying One of these officials was Naim Bey, the famous Naim Bey of Aram Andonian. We have identified him. He existed, the name was right, Andonian's description of him as corrupt was right, and also his workplace at Meskene was right. Andonian was not lying.
The Der Zor massacre In 1916, the Der Zor massacre. Possibly the worst massacre of the Armenian genocide. Why did it happen? Why in 1916? And why do I say that it was not planned in 1915?
Der Zor had such a weak administrative infrastructure that it was overwhelmed. And because Der Zor was directly linked to the central government and not first to a provincial governor, it reported directly to Talat.
In early 1916, Talat ordered an acceleration of deportation of Armenians into Der Zor. He was really urging regional authorities to speed up and not to let the Armenians stray. Then Talat ordered the authorities in Der Zor to stop sending the Armenians to another settlement, Kirkuk€ ¦’·which was in the Mosul province€ ¦’·because the commander of the Sixth Army had complained that these Armenians would be a security risk as the British were advancing in Iraq. So what you see here, the overflow area of Der Zor, Kirkuk, was closed-off because the army in Iraq said we don't want to have them there.
So Der Zor became a cul de sac, a dead end. And even the one caravan that made it to Mosul was sent back to Der Zor on the orders of Talat. Mind you, we have survivor memoirs of people who were in the caravan. Then, the central authorities say, No more Armenians into Homs, Hama. Only Der Zor. Cannot go south, cannot go east.
Next order: The deportees in Ras ul Ein were sent into Der Zor.
Then comes the order that Armenians should not be employed by the government anymore. It means the Armenians don't get paid for their work anymore. If you don't get paid but you have to pay for work, who feeds you? The government. You see the problem that's building up? A lot of Armenians, very expensive, very few resources, and then comes the big thing. The presence of Armenians threatens the supply lines of the Iraqi army along the Euphrates. They must not stay along the Euphrates. If you are not allowed to stay at the Euphrates, if you are not allowed to leave the area, where to put you? Then in July, Talay says, Move the Armenians away from Der Zor. What was the direction? Cheddadiyye. What we also see is that Talat coordination in late July, in rapid succession, the deployment of additional mounted gendarmerie or militia forces in Der Zor. There's a build-up.
Then in August, the Armenians are massacred. And you don't find much on this in the archives. The only thing you find in some Turkish military memoirs is a description of the bone fields.
The Young Turk government did not have one decision for mass murder, they had several decisions for mass murder, and these various decisions for mass murder add up to this total wipe out, destruction.
Concentration camps When we talk about concentration camps, we all think about Auschwitz or Germany in World War II. In the Armenian genocide, you don't have that. You do not need barbed wire. The desert was much more effective. In the Syrian desert, you don't have to fence the Armenians. Once you control the exits to the water, you control the movement of the people because the people have to go to the water to survive.
Gendered genocide The Armenian genocide is a highly gendered genocide. The Armenian genocide is a history of the women and the children, because the men were in the army or were killed early in the deportation. The historiography of the Armenian genocide is also highly gendered. It's written by the males.
Number of victims The Ottoman Armenian population was approximately 1.8-2.2 million people. Depending on the estimate, between 1 and 1.5 million Armenians were "lost." When I say "lost," I mean killed, but also taken into Muslim households. "Lost" to the community, not returned.
It turns out the Armenian Patriarchate figures are surprisingly reliable. I obtained documents from the Ottoman archives where you find Armenian in small numbers in villages where, according to the Patriarchate, there were no Armenians.
The Armenian Weekly April 5, 2008
Adrienne McOmber, wife of Richard McOmber, and mother of Armen McOmber, just phoned me to tell me that she and her husband went to a lecture last night at Rutgers University to hear Dr. Hilmar Kaiser, an event unfortunately sponsored by the Armenian Students Society wherein Hilmar, as he has done for the past several years, badmouthed and denigrated just about all Armenian genocide scholars in the US and Europe, including Vahakn Dadrian and Taner Akcam, and put into question the very reality of a genocide sponsored by the Young Turk government against the Armenians in 1915-1923.
The lecture was attended by some apparently high-ranking Turks who smiled and nodded throughout the lecture. They then invited Hilmar to dinner today! They talked with Hilmar in Turkish, but we had Turkish speaker present who understood what was going on.
He is attempting to put into question all the valuable scholarship produced by Armenians and their cohorts regarding the Armenian genocide and thus deny that the genocide was sponsored by the Turkish central authorities, making it only a series of massacres carried out on the local level. This is subversive activity at its worse.
Unfortunately, an important Armenian patriotic organization had unwittingly sent Hilmar on a speaking tour around the United State a couple of year ago, wherein he did the same thing. I received phone calls from all over the United States warning me about what was going on. Knowing his itinerary, I asked people to record his "lectures" so I would have proof of what he was doing. I then contacted his sponsors who replied that "he attracted young people" and was therefore useful. Finally I had to contact some higher ups who then caused the organization to warn Hilmar that if he spoke against Armenian genocide scholars his tour would be brought to an end.
Now Hilmar is back on the road on a speaking tour, offered free to Armenian student organizations, wherein he is now doing the same badmouthing and putting the Armenian genocide, as a genocide, in question. He will speak at Villanova University on Monday, March 31.
The man is a clear and present danger. If he puts into question the work of our best genocide scholars, then the Turks have a natural and effective ally against us. He worked for me several years ago and I had to fire him for his dishonesty. I still have the records.
All Armenian student groups and all Armenian organizations must be warned not to sponsor his talks and also to attend his lectures when they are inevitable, record the lectures and send a copy to me, and be prepared to defend our genocide scholars against his false accusations.
Dennis R. Papazian
Kindly Forwarded by Ara Baliozian
Labels: Aram Andonian, Hilmar Kaiser
24.10.07
2112) It is NOT Over YET . . and Never Will . .
Simply . . because . . See the item below, published yesterday:
Campaign In Support Of Armenian Genocide Resolution To Be Held In US His Eminence Archbishop Moushegh Mardirossian, Prelate of the Western Prelacy of the Armenian Apostolic Church, and citizen-activists from across the U.S. will be arriving in Washington, DC, this week to urge passage of the Armenian Genocide resolution, H.Res.106, reported the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA).
To remind, the adoption of the resolution by the House Foreign Affairs Committee on October 10th sparked a firestorm of media coverage over the Turkish government's threats to retaliate against America, if the measure were approved by the full House of Representatives. Turkey has poured millions of foreign dollars into the U.S. political system, paying former Members of Congress to make its case and public relations firms to spin the media coverage against this human rights legislation.
In a first wave of community visits to Washington in the wake of the panel vote, advocates for this legislation – Americans committed to the growth of a genuine an anti-genocide constituency – are working with their elected officials to put America back on the right side of this fundamental moral issue. The ANCA, Armenian Assembly, and a range of other community groups are taking part in this effort.
"We are pleased to be joined by so many friends from across the country in helping to put America back on the right side of this fundamental moral and human rights issue," said ANCA Executive Director Aram Hamparian. "We welcome their devotion and energy and look forward to working with them to encourage legislators to stand up against Turkey's efforts to exercise a veto over the recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the U.S. Congress."
Activists from over 15 states, including California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Texas will be meeting with Members of Congress and staff in Washington, DC, with activists in remaining states reaching out to their Congressional district offices. The Washington DC advocacy effort, expands on the nationwide ANCA Call-in and write-in campaigns, which have been underway since the Armenian Genocide resolution was introduced in January, 2007, by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and spearheaded by Representative George Radanovich (R-CA), Congressional Armenian Caucus Co-Chairs Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and Joe Knollenberg (R-MI), Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), Ed Royce (R-CA), and Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA). In March, the ANCA joined with the Genocide Intervention Network in sponsoring the "End the Cycle of Genocide" Advocacy Days, calling congressional attention to the denial of the Armenian Genocide and the need for urgent action to stop the ongoing genocide in Darfur, Sudan.
This past Sunday, the ANCA hosted a special three-hour presentation on Horizon Armenian Television, titled "ANCA Special Project: Call for Justice", spotlighting the growing Armenian American community activism in support of H.Res.106. The special included remarks by His Eminence Moushegh Mardirossian, His Eminence Hovnan Derderian, Primate of the Western Diocese of the Armenian Apostolic Church, Glendale City Clerk Ardashes Kassakhian, and a of host community organization leaders urging ongoing grassroots activism in support of the Armenian Genocide resolution. Congressmen Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Brad Sherman (D-CA) both called into the program to offer personal insights into the path of this legislation.
Among the highlights of the program were updates from ANCA Chapters from across the United States, documenting their efforts to pass H.Res.106 and encouraging Armenian Americans to get involved locally and nationally. The unified voice of the Armenian American community in support of Armenian Genocide legislation was heard loud and clears throughout the broadcast, as citizen-activists from Los Angeles to New York called in to pledge their commitment to this human rights legislation.
The October 10th House Foreign Affairs Committee vote approved H.Res.106 by 27 to 21, despite a public call by President Bush, announced during a White House press conference, against the measure. In the wake of its adoption, over 5000 print, on-line and broadcast news items have covered this measure. H.Res.106 currently has over 200 cosponsors, while a similar measure in the Senate, led by Senators Richard Durbin (D-IL) and John Ensign (R-NV), has 33 cosponsors. www.defacto.am 2007-10-23
I urge every Turk in Turkey who can write in English, or in Turkish and have their letter translated into English, to send a letter to at least one member of the U.S. House of Representatives. It must be calm, logical and state facts that are correct. In the U.S., due to the culture here, people are persuaded by facts not passion and not anger. There are very few Turks living in America compared to immigrants from other nations. Every interaction a Turk has with an American leaves a very big impression because it may be the only, or one of a very few interactions, that American has ever had with a Turk. In a very real sense, we are the unofficial "Ambassadors of Turkey" and we must always represent ourselves as we are, civilized, educated, rational and modern.
This is a very important time for Turks. Although the U.S. Congress Committee on Foreign Affairs voted to pass the Armenian Resolution, this only means that the full House of Representatives may consider and vote on the Armenian Resolution. The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has said that she plans to present the Armenian Resolution to the full House within the next few weeks. This is the time for Turks to take effective action to persuade the U.S. Congress to vote against the Armenian Resolution. Each and every Turk, no matter where they live can and should participate in this effort.
What we need are letters that show that the Armenian Resolution currently being considered by the U.S. Congress is unjust. We need letters to explain that the Armenians waged war against Turks in an effort to establish a Greater Armenia that reaches well into Anatolia. They lost that war and now are trying to achieve their goal through popular opinion using forged documents (the Andonian papers) and false quotes (the Hitler quote). Although experts have concluded the Hitler quote is without foundation and the Andonian documents are notorious forgeries, the Armenian Diaspora still rely on these things as evidence of their alleged genocide.
Individual letters sent to Representatives in the Congress are read by each politician’s assistants or the politicians themselves. Letters do matter. They have an impact and make a difference. One Armenian website claims their Diaspora sent over 10,000 letters to Congress about this Resolution. The Armenian Diaspora is well funded and organized. They even pay hundreds, if not thousands, of people throughout the world to work on this issue. They are very serious and devoted to achieving their goal of a greater Armenia using a war of words. We Turks, as individuals, have not participated in large enough numbers in this war of words yet to have our story heard and understood. It is our responsibility to change this. No one else will.
What we need to do now is focus our time, effort, energy, our anger and our hurt on productive measures. We should not focus on other issues such as the U.S. bombing of Hiroshima or the massacres of Indians in America. The Japanese and Indians take care of their needs, and we must focus on ours: we need to refute the Diaspora’s genocide claims and reclaim an accurate version of our collective history. We need all Turks to write letters to members of the U.S. Congress that tell our "grandpa stories," that accurately explain the historical facts referencing third party impartial sources, such as the British, U.S., French and Russian archives, or renowned impartial experts in Ottoman history such as Bernard Lewis, Pierre Oberling, Dankwart Rostow, Stanford Shaw, Justin McCarthy, Norman Stone, Guenther Lewy, Heath Lowry, and Avigdor Levy.
These letters should be sent to as many members of the U.S. Congress as possible. They can be emailed, sent by facsimile or regular air mail. Each member of Congress has a website where their contact information can be found. A list of the members of the House of Representatives can be found here: http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/index.html. You may also send your letter to Congressman Tom Lantos who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee that just voted to pass the Resolution or Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Their addresses are below:
DC Address: The Honorable Tom Lantos
United States House of Representatives
2413 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-0512
DC Phone: 202-225-3531
DC Fax: 202-226-4183
Email Address: http://www.house.gov/formlantos/issue_subscribe.htm
WWW Homepage: http://lantos.house.gov/
DC Address: The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
United States House of Representatives
Office of the Speaker
H-232, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
DC Phone: (202) 225-0100
Email Address: http://www.house.gov/pelosi/contact/contact.html
WWW Homepage: http://www.speaker.gov
There are 70 million of us. Imagine what would happen if only 10% of Turks wrote a letter—that would be 7 million letters. Seven million voices speaking together would have an enormous impact. We can do this. It's our country, if we want to keep it, we must protect it. That means we need to stand up and have our voice heard. However, to do that, we must speak now. Our letters can do that.
Nancy Pelosi's Email Address: americanvoices@mail.house.gov
To the Honorable Speaker Pelosi:
As a citizen of Turkey, I am writing because I understand that you now have the authority to bring H.Res.106 to a full vote by the U.S. House of Representatives. I further understand that you are in favor of this resolution.
I know that the American people have worked hard throughout the years to achieve and maintain their democracy. While our democracy is much younger, like Americans, we Turks have also worked hard and struggled to build our democracy, and while it is imperfect like all other democracies, we continue to work every day to improve it. However, if the U.S. Congress adopts H. Res. 106, it is very possible that you may unwittingly undo all that we Turks have worked so hard to achieve since we first obtained our independence in 1923.
Unlike the Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide stands disputed. The difficulty lies in the fact that the request to Turks to accept events that occurred during WWI focuses only on the last few years of an ongoing series of wars fought between 1820 and 1923 and waged between Russia and the Ottoman Empire. Starting around 1820, the Russians and the Armenians on the Russian side systematically massacred and removed large masses of Turkic and Muslim people, estimated to be around two million, from the Caucauses and eastern Anatolia either into the Russian hinterlands or into central and southern Anatolia.
To start a review of this history in 1914-1915 is like reviewing WW2 starting only in 1943 and condemmning the Americans and Allies of terrible acts of inhumanity for the mass bombing of German industrial cities, without discussing the bombing of London and other English cities by the Luftwaffe.
The voices and stories of the dead Turkic and Muslim people are never heard when the focus is on 1914-1915. As offered by Turkey's Prime Minister, a joint Armenian and Turkish review that includes other involved third parties from the period is the best way to achieve acceptance by all of the terrible horrors experienced by the Armenian and the Turkic people during that time span. It would also be the only fair way to remember all who sufferred and to improve relations between Turks and Armenians, which should be the ultimate and only goal.
Passing H. Resolution 106, however, is more likely to ensure that the wedge driven between Armenians and Turks as a strategy of war by others remains solidly in place.
Reconciliation and improved relations can only result after a fair review of the totality of events that led to the conflict between Armenians and Turks. It is this that would ultimately benefit both Turks and Armenians, and that is what we should all strive to achieve.
You have a unique opportunity to use your position and power to bring our people together again, but H. Resolution 106 cannot accomplish that.
I therefore urge you to reconsider your decision to bring H. Res. 106 to a full vote of the U.S. House of Representatives. Instead, I urge you to consider exploring other means for recognizing the horrors experienced by our forefathers that will lead to the reconciliation of relations between Turks and Armenians.
Sincerely,
[Your Name Here]
To send Tom Lantos an email at his website (http://www.house.gov/formlantos/issue_subscribe.htm) for your city and zip code enter the following:
City: Istanbul, Turkey (whichever city you live in)
State: (Don't enter anything here)
Zip Code: 94404-3644
......................................................................
To the Honorable Congressman Lantos:
As a citizen of Turkey, I am writing because I understand that you support H.Res.106.
I know that the American people have worked hard throughout the years to achieve and maintain their democracy. While our democracy is much younger, like Americans, we Turks have also worked hard and struggled to build our democracy, and while it is imperfect like all other democracies, we continue to work every day to improve it. However, if the U.S. Congress adopts H. Res. 106, it is very possible that you may unwittingly undo all that we Turks have worked so hard to achieve since we first obtained our independence in 1923.
Unlike the Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide stands disputed. The difficulty lies in the fact that the request to Turks to accept events that occurred during WWI focuses only on the last few years of an ongoing series of wars fought between 1820 and 1923 and waged between Russia and the Ottoman Empire. Starting around 1820, the Russians and the Armenians on the Russian side systematically massacred and removed large masses of Turkic and Muslim people, estimated to be around two million, from the Caucauses and eastern Anatolia either into the Russian hinterlands or into central and southern Anatolia.
To start a review of this history in 1914-1915 is like reviewing WW2 starting only in 1943 and condemmning the Americans and Allies of terrible acts of inhumanity for the mass bombing of German industrial cities, without discussing the bombing of London and other English cities by the Luftwaffe.
The voices and stories of the dead Turkic and Muslim people are never heard when the focus is 1914-1915. As offered by Turkey's Prime Minister, a joint Armenian and Turkish review that includes other involved third parties from the period is the best way to achieve acceptance by all of the terrible horrors experienced by the Armenian and the Turkic people during that time span. It would also be the only fair way to remember all who sufferred and to improve relations between Turks and Armenians, which should be the ultimate and only goal.
Passing H. Resolution 106, however, is more likely to ensure that the wedge driven between Armenians and Turks as a strategy of war by others remains solidly in place.
Reconciliation and improved relations can only result after a fair review of the totality of events that led to the conflict between Armenians and Turks. It is this that would ultimately benefit both Turks and Armenians, and that is what we should all strive to achieve.
You have a unique opportunity to use your position and power to bring our people together again, but H. Resolution 106 cannot accomplish that.
I therefore urge you to reconsider your support of H. Res. 106. Instead, I urge you to consider exploring other means for recognizing the horrors experienced by our forefathers that will lead to the reconciliation of relations between Turks and Armenians.
Sincerely,
[Your Name Here]
Congressman Boehner is like Nancy Pelosi for the Republicans
___________________________________________________
To email Congressman Boehner, go to this website: http://johnboehner.house.gov/Contact/
Enter the following 9 digit-zip code: 45373-3282
Click Submit
Enter your letter and the following:
City: Istanbul, Turkey (whichever city you live in)
State: OH
Zip Code: 45373
Enter ONLY the letter below.
___________________________________________________
To the Honorable Congressman Boehner:
I am writing to you to urge you to oppose H.Res.106.
I know that the American people have worked hard throughout the years to achieve and maintain their democracy. While our democracy is much younger, like Americans, we Turks have also worked hard and struggled to build our democracy, and while it is imperfect like all other democracies, we continue to work every day to improve it. However, if the U.S. Congress adopts H. Res. 106, it is very possible that you may unwittingly undo all that we Turks have worked so hard to achieve since we first obtained our independence in 1923.
Unlike the Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide stands disputed. The difficulty lies in the fact that the request to Turks to accept events that occurred during WWI focuses only on the last few years of an ongoing series of wars fought between 1820 and 1923 and waged between Russia and the Ottoman Empire. Starting around 1820, the Russians and the Armenians on the Russian side systematically massacred and removed large masses of Turkic and Muslim people, estimated to be around two million, from the Caucauses and eastern Anatolia either into the Russian hinterlands or into central and southern Anatolia.
To start a review of this history in 1914-1915 is like reviewing WW2 starting only in 1943 and condemmning the Americans and Allies of terrible acts of inhumanity for the mass bombing of German industrial cities, without discussing the bombing of London and other English cities by the Luftwaffe.
The voices and stories of the dead Turkic and Muslim people are never heard when the focus is 1914-1915. As offered by Turkey's Prime Minister, a joint Armenian and Turkish review that includes other involved third parties from the period is the best way to achieve acceptance by all of the terrible horrors experienced by the Armenian and the Turkic people during that time span. It would also be the only fair way to remember all who sufferred and to improve relations between Turks and Armenians, which should be the ultimate and only goal.
Passing H. Resolution 106, however, is more likely to ensure that the wedge driven between Armenians and Turks as a strategy of war by others remains solidly in place.
Reconciliation and improved relations can only result after a fair review of the totality of events that led to the conflict between Armenians and Turks. It is this that would ultimately benefit both Turks and Armenians, and that is what we should all strive to achieve.
You have a unique opportunity to use your position and power to bring our people together again, but H. Resolution 106 cannot accomplish that.
I therefore urge you to oppose H. Res. 106. Instead, I urge you to consider exploring other means for recognizing the horrors experienced by our forefathers that will lead to the reconciliation of relations between Turks and Armenians.
Sincerely,
[Your Name Here]
Labels: Aram Andonian
17.10.07
2080) For All Turks And Armenians: An Analysis And Manifesto
This op-ed aims to do two things: Give a balanced rendering of the Turkish-Armenian dispute and call upon Turks and Armenians to get out of their straight-jackets and reach an understanding. .
The Analysis
Last week, the Foreign Affairs Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives passed Resolution 106, titled “Affirmation of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution.” Introduced by Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA), H. Res. 106 calls “upon the President [of the United States] to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide documented in the United States record relating to the Armenian Genocide, and for other purposes.”[1] It is expected that the resolution will be approved by the full House in mid-November. While Armenians around the world rejoiced at the decision, Turkish officials have pointed out that if the House accepts the resolution, nationalist reaction in Turkey will damage Turkish-American and Turkish-Armenian relations beyond repair.
For decades, a lot has been said on the tragedy that befell Ottoman Armenians during World War I. The argument is over whether the events can be described as genocide (defined by the “UN Convention on Genocide” as the deliberate “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical [sic], racial or religious group”) or not.[2]
Those who make a case for genocide argue that from April 1915 until late 1917, the Ottoman government used the military losses on the Caucasian front at the hands of Russia and the terrorism by Armenian nationalist revolutionaries to implement a genocide against Armenian civilians. For this school, the Ottoman government’s decision to relocate/deport the Armenians was a smoke-screen.[3]
Those who argue that the events did not constitute genocide point out that Istanbul’s order to temporarily deport Ottoman Armenians intended to do strictly that – to relocate Armenian civilians to areas away from the troubles. Their destination was other Ottoman provinces. Incompetent administrators, pressed by terrorism, poor logistics, and an inadequate infrastructure, failed to cope with the situation. All of this resulted in the tragic deaths of the Armenians. At any rate, this school argues, Armenian terrorists also killed many Muslims; the killings went both ways.[4]
These stances can be scrutinized in different ways. A strict application of the UN Convention’s definition of the term “genocide” may disqualify the Armenian example. Those who make the case against genocide maintain that the government in Istanbul did not intend to exterminate the Armenians. Those arguing for genocide claim the opposite and point out to the secret telegrams sent from Istanbul to the eastern front ordering the mass killings.
Some of those Ottoman officials who were guilty of premeditated murder actually confessed to their crimes in military tribunals following World War I. The records of the tribunals, coupled with some of the hand-written copies of telegrams sent from Istanbul to the front, demonstrate that it took a little more than berserk troops on the ground to carry out the genocidal killings.
But the claim that Istanbul ordered the annihilation of Armenians is also weakened by certain factors. The authenticity of certain documents tarnishes the case for genocide. The secret telegrams, for example, are almost exclusively available at the archives of the Armenian Patriarchate in Jerusalem. Not a terribly neutral venue.
Specifically, take the “Naim-Andonian telegrams.” In 1920, Aram Andonian, an Armenian journalist who had worked for the Young Turk government earlier in the war, published the memoirs of a certain Naim Bey. According to Andonian, Naim Bey was a Turkish official who served as the chief secretary of the deportation committee in Aleppo during the war. Upon the conclusion of the war, Naim handed Andonian the telegrams originating from Istanbul with the orders to massacre Armenian civilians. The problem is that those telegrams are labeled as forgeries by some historians because Andonian never produced the originals. In fact, some scholars have even gone far as to suggest that Andonian simply wrote what he thought about the massacres by using Naim as a mouthpiece.[5]
Documents comparable to the minutes of the Nazis’ Wannsee Conference of January 1942 (where they came up with their infamous “final solution to the Jewish question”) in brevity, scope, and authenticity cannot easily be mustered that in the Armenian case and that is a problem.
None of these points, however, eclipse one glaring fact: Hundreds of thousands of Ottoman Armenians died between 1915 and 1917 (the estimates range from 600,000 to 1.5 million, depending on one’s position). Turkish and Kurdish civilians also suffered horrendously at the hands of Armenian bands, both in the Russian-occupied parts of Eastern Anatolia and the territory controlled by the Ottoman state. It is true that some of the Armenians died of disease, cold, and malnutrition. On the other hand, it must be conceded that probably a lot Armenians died at the hands of Turkish soldiers and Kurdish tribesmen as well.
The Manifesto
Looking at the sheer numbers of dead civilians, we have to understand the futility of the “genocide – not genocide” discussion. How can anyone limit one’s conscience to a single word? No person in his right mind would do such a thing. And neither should Turks and Armenians.
This tragedy that befell us was much more sinister than a genocide. If the Istanbul government implemented a genocide, why did most of our ancestors not stand up for their neighbors? When Armenian terrorists rounded up fellow Muslim villagers, why did most of our grandparents not do anything to stop them? Forget about stopping the massacres, some of them – Armenian and Muslim – happily did their part in the killings!
What is tragic is that since 1915, we have only emulated their mistakes. The deaths of Turkish diplomats in the 1970s and 1980s, incessant bickering between Turks and Armenians, and lately, the tragic murder of the Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink in January 2007, attest to the fact that we have to change our attitude.
That change of attitude should start by recognizing the fact that we Turks and Armenians killed each other on an industrial scale. That many more Armenians died than Turks is irrelevant. The important thing is that innocent civilians perished – babies, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles, and grandparents.
If you cannot comprehend the gravity of such a loss, just imagine yourself at a family gathering: You are surrounded by all the people you love – your mother, father, siblings, spouse, children, nieces, nephews. And all of a sudden imagine that these people – every single one of them – are killed before your eyes by people with whom you lived as good neighbors for nearly a millennium. After the deaths of your loved ones, hundreds, thousands, and millions would mean very little for you because you do not have a reason to exist anymore.
So I call upon all Turks and Armenians: Come to your senses!
We have lost too much and suffered long enough. Let us regain what we once had – our friendship, peaceful coexistence, and respect for each other. Let the Armenians convince Turks, rather than American politicians, about their sufferings. Let the Turks make the Armenians see their point of view. As Hrant Dink said in an interview not long before he was slain, “Armenians are the doctors of Turks and Turks are the doctors of Armenians.” Only by talking to each other rather than through each other can we resolve our differences and ease our suffering.
Esteemed members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The biggest favor that Western nations can possibly do to Turkish and Armenian people is to mind their own business and let them come to an understanding on their own. Your resolution is only going to exacerbate enmities. To expect that H. Res. 106 will facilitate a reconciliation between Turks and Armenians is as sensible as extinguishing fire with dynamite. We implore you not to do it.
Finally, those who owe their petty existence to the perpetuation of this dispute: Hate-mongers! Appear as you may as Turks or Armenians, you are all on the same side. Yes, you hate-mongers are on the same side!
You extremists do not strive for the happiness of your peoples; you look around for enemies to satiate your neurosis. Stirring up trouble is only a convenience for you. You live by seeing enemies everywhere. If you cannot find enemies, you create them, just as you did nearly a hundred years ago. You, murderers of Hrant Dink, Mehmet Baydar, Artin Penik, Necla Kuneralp and hundreds of thousands of others, are all on the same side. We – real Turks and Armenians – are on the other side.
Leave us alone!
+++
Barin Kayaoglu is a Ph.D. student in history at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Virginia and a regular contributor to the Journal of Turkish Weekly. kayaoglu@virginia.edu
[1] H. Res. 106 is available in full text from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hr110-106.
[2] See “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,” available from http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm. A very typical quarrel of historians, which is not the finest piece of scholarly courtesy, can be found at this link: “Michael Gunter: He Blurbed a Book…Should He Then Have Reviewed It?” History News Network, August 17, 2007; available from http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/41948.html.
[3] A flood of studies exists on the subject and even the shortest list will look like a long bibliographical essay. Therefore, scholarly works that are also readable are mentioned here. The most convincing case for genocide is made by the Turkish historian Taner Akçam. See his From Empire to Republic: Turkish Nationalism and the Armenian Genocide (London and New York: Zed Books, 2004) and A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2006).
[4] The case against genocide is most cogently made by the American historian Justin McCarthy. See his The Ottoman Peoples and the End of Empire (New York: Arnold, 2001) (which gives the broader contour of the demise of the Ottoman Empire and places the Armenians’ plight in that context) and The Armenian Rebellion at Van (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2006).
[5] See, for example, Türkkaya Ataöv, The Andonian “Documents” Attributed to Talat Pasha Are Forgeries (Ankara: University of Ankara, 1984). The “Naim-Andonian telegrams” are so problematic, though he accepts their possible authenticity, even Prof. Akçam does not use them in his A Shameful Act. See Akçam’s footnote in A Shameful Act, p. 378, n4.
Barin Kayaoglu, 17 October 2007
Journal of Turkish Weekly(JTW)
Labels: Aram Andonian
8.10.07
2035) Genocide Pays A Dividend To Samantha Power
TIME Magazine announced in its October 8, 2007 issue that Samantha Power will become its foreign-affairs columnist. This is not just any journalistic job, but a plum one, not only working for the most successful news-magazine, but getting a featured slot to boot.
Masthead of TIME page: Samantha Power featured as new commentator
Naturally, the hypocritical world of genocide has enabled Power to be in a unique position to reap certain rewards. Writing her "Problem From Hell" book melted the hearts of lazy-minded intellectuals; she was against genocide, and that made her a media darling. The stance automatically made her "moral," and made her a defender of "human rights." (She subsequently became executive director of the Carr Center for Human Rights.) Nobody bothered to check (or, worse, cared) whether any "less desirable" humans were getting pummeled on her way up, and nobody (especially, shamefully, the top journalists and professors from the Pulitzer committee; see next paragraph, and photograph below) checked the journalistic standards of her book, particularly the way she set about establishing the foundation for an Armenian "genocide." The cultural elite simply fell over themselves in ways to reward this angel who was outraged over the worst crime against humanity.
She actually received a 2003 Pulitzer, as TIME Managing Editor Richard Stengel informed in his editorial announcing Power's arrival ("Iraq Churns On"), along with a National Book Critics Circle Award. "Not bad for something that started out as a class paper," Stengel beamed. (He explained the peculiar reason for Power's attendance in Harvard Law School was a means for Power to be "determined to write about why governments do little in the face of atrocity.")
Barack Obama
Power evidently had the power to hobnob with intellectual circles (she also attended Yale; it's usually difficult and expensive for commoners to gain entrance into the nation's hoitiest and toitiest ivy league universities, particularly for frivolous reasons such as attending law school in order to become a writer), and once she tapped into phony genocide sensibilities, the world became hers. She even became an "informal, unpaid adviser to Senator Barack Obama," which probably had a lot to do with Obama's suddenly harping over the "Armenian genocide." (Not that Obama needed Power to harp; it is a given that any U.S. politician seeking election must curry favor with the wealthy, influential and bullying Armenian community, and the best way is to share their genocide fetish.) Obama appears to be a nice man, but it does not say much about his analytical skills to reach important conclusions based on one-sided propaganda (nor does it say much about his judgment, for allowing a blatant propagandist by his side).
Power's first TIME topic had to do with the plight of millions of Iraqi refugees, and Stengel opined that Power was "uniquely equipped to think though this morality tale." In other words, Samantha Power hates genocides. (At least certain genocides, or would-be genocides, at the expense of less popular genocides.) That makes her more "moral" than most.
It is this impression of her as a moralist and ethicist that has opened so many doors for Samantha Power. This is a benefit of joining the genocide club; one could even become a prestigious columnist for TIME Magazine.
The tragedy is, of course, that Power is really an "immoralist." It is immoral to accuse another of a ruinous crime, particularly murder, if one does not have the evidence. (Even more so when the "another" is a nation.) It is also highly immoral to close one's eyes to the high crimes of the designated victims, and to invite hatred against the group that is designated as the villains; particularly by comparing them with Nazis. (In the PBS propaganda show, "The Armenian Genocide," Power actually put modern, and not simply Ottoman, Turks in the role of Nazis.)
.
photo: Joe Pineiro
Dr. Patricia Limerick, who
won a "genius award,"
and appears to be a very
qualified historian. Why
didn't she check the
propagandistic sources
of Power's first chapter?
Why didn't any of these
"professional" people?
Why do brains go to
mush when the topic is
"genocide"?
The 2003 Pulitzer Board that voted to reward Samantha Power for her book perpetrating hatred against Turks on no evidence, "A Problem From Hell." Perhaps some of these people declined to support this book, but most likely the bulk pitched in, to show how liberally "moral" they were, to be on the right side against "genocide." They went out of their way to award Power $7,500 and a special prize in General Non-Fiction, a "distinguished" book "not eligible for consideration in any other category."
The jurors who nominated the book were Richard Bernstein, New York Times book critic, Diane Ackerman, and Patricia Limerick, Professor of History, University of Colorado.
But doesn't TIME Magazine have journalistic standards? Shouldn't TIME require more from a journalist, than simply blowing moral smoke?
A reporter's duty is to question. A reporter has an ethical responsibility to investigate all sides of an issue before making impartial conclusions. Samantha Power does not operate in this fashion. Samantha Power, at least with issues she is too emotional about (which puts into question anything else she analyzes), begins with the conclusion first, and is not averse in using any contaminated claims that will back up her agenda.
Any professional journalist who takes the trouble to look into how Samantha Power built her case for the Armenian "genocide" would have his or her hair stand on end. Almost without exception, in the first chapter of her book, Power has relied on 100% pure propaganda. (Mainly "Ambassador Morgenthau's Story," and bigoted, hearsay-ridden New York Times articles, one of which she points to actually admits how "unreliable" the massacre stories were, because no U.S. journalist witnessed anything firsthand.)
(But, of course, one did. His verdict: no genocide.)
Moreover, Power reportedly admitted in her 2002 book tour appearance at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum that she has read many contra-genocide books, which means that she deliberately ignored the rock-solid and generally Turk-unfriendly sources which cannot be construed as propaganda; in other words, if what she claimed was true, she cannot cop an ignorance plea, and she is a deliberate manipulator, and a conscious deceiver.
In her Armenian chapter, she referred to the forgeries of Aram Andonian not once, but three times.
How could TIME Magazine be caught dead hiring a writer who not only purposely omits the real facts, but unconscientiously presents blatant lies?
Before we fault TIME for having hired someone based on political celebrity rather than for journalistic excellence, we must ask, how has TIME itself sized up the Armenian "genocide"?
The answer comes as no surprise. For reasons of prejudice and/or politics, TIME is fully in support of this "genocide" as a reality.
Lucky for TIME it wasn't around during the WWI years, otherwise its "genocide" history could have been almost as disgraceful as that of The New York Times. Its "genocide" coverage has not been plentiful, but there is one striking example from Aug. 23, 1982 that deserves special notice.
We learn of an Armenian terrorist episode in Ankara which killed nine and wounded seventy-two, and the article correctly begins with, "The (anti-Turkish) hatred is venomous, relentless and overwhelming." Sounds like a set-up for faulting these fanatical Armenian terrorists, doesn't it? Surely we expect a sense of sorrow over this horrifying episode of violence against humanity.
Yet the sorrow never arrives. Instead, we soon get the picture that TIME itself is a contender for this "venomous, relentless and overwhelming" anti-Turkish hatred.
The segue to the article's hateful portion tells us that a French official recognized these "1915" events as genocide, which led to TIME's point of Turkish protest "contributing to an atmosphere that encourages Armenian violence." There is truth there as well, but what we are really being told is that the Turks were in the wrong, and thus what the Armenian terrorists were doing was somewhat justifiable.
Whenever an Armenian terrorist was caught in France, the French government usually let the perpetrators go with a slap on the wrist. (Even the rare ones with heavier sentences were released after a few years.) It was this condoning of Armenian propaganda that fed, and still feeds, the ever continuing cycle of hatred. And TIME did not disappoint; with this particular article, TIME decided to blatantly publicize Armenian propaganda, in a piece that initially promised to vent outrage on a destructive terror incident.
The article tells us in no uncertain terms who the real criminals and the real victims were. "During World War I, the Turks exterminated or deported virtually their entire Armenian population because they held the unfounded suspicion that members of the ethnic group were disloyal." Note TIME's irresponsible journalism. The word "allegedly" wasn't even added before the word "exterminated," which is curious, because there is no evidence of murder, or "extermination," on the part of the Ottoman government. (To the magazine's credit, the article would actually take a stab at offering real proof, however; read on.) We can only approach genocidal territory if a nation deliberately and systematically targeted innocents. Most Armenians, like most Turks, died of famine and disease; murdered Armenians died in the hands of marauders and renegade forces. (Whereas the bulk of the half-million Ottomans killed in the hands of Armenians had to have been systematically destroyed under a predetermined plan.)
As far as how "unfounded" the "suspicion" was, regarding Armenian disloyalty, who better to ask than a primary Armenian leader of the period, Boghos Nubar (January 30, 1919, The Times of London): "...[E]ver since the beginning of the war the Armenians fought by the side of the Allies on all fronts...the Armenians have been belligerents de facto, since they indignantly refused to side with Turkey." Nubar bragged of a combined Armenian force of 200,000, a serious number, perhaps some 60,000 greater than the number of American soldiers used in the first phase of the Iraqi invasion. (Not that all 200,000 were involved at once in the Ottoman front; yet, perhaps 100,000 Ottoman-Armenian men had defected to the Russian side, either by crossing the border or by staying behind to fight, and there is no question that the Armenians declared war.
Since the 1948 U.N. Convention on Genocide exempts political groups, as even Power noted in her "Hell" book, already we know the Armenian experience cannot be termed as a "genocide."
Here's how the Armenians' and Samantha Power's own guru, Ambassador Henry Morgenthau, felt about the likely U.S. response, if the USA should ever be victimized by a rebellious and traitorous community during a time of war (from his 1918 "Story" book): "'But I am told,' said Von Jagow, 'that there will be an insurrection of German-Americans if your country makes war on us.' 'Dismiss any such idea from your mind,' I replied. 'The first one who attempts it will be punished so promptly and so drastically that such a movement will not go far...'" Naturally; it would normally be considered any nation's right to defend itself from forces out to destroy the nation.
If war were a matter of national life and death, as was the case with the Ottomans, maybe the USA would not have even bothered (given the scenario mentioned above) with a "deportation," which is the pro-Armenians' synonym for "genocide." If German-American rebels committed atrocities upon America's defenseless populace, with soldiers away at multiple fronts, perhaps the U.S. would have shot first and asked questions later. As America basically did in the Philippines, barely a generation prior to WWI.
At least TIME'S 1982 article offered the one thing truth-seekers would demand and respect; actual, concrete evidence that would prove a systematic extermination plan, or "genocide":
"The decision to undertake the genocide was communicated to the local leaders by the Interior Minister, Talaat Pasha, in 1915. One of his edicts stated that the government had decided to 'destroy completely all Armenians living in Turkey. An end must be put to their existence, however criminal the measures taken may be, and no regard must be paid to age, or sex, or to scruples of conscience.'"
There you have it, ladies and gentlemen. TIME Magazine applied its highest principles of journalistic integrity by coming up with the irrefutable proof. Imagine, a written order from Talat "Adolf Hitler" Pasha, himself!
Unfortunately, the one who wrote those words was not Talat, but Aram Andonian. Indeed, Samantha Power's favorite forger.
Suddenly, the fact that TIME hired Samantha Power makes perfect sense.
----------------------------------------------------
© Holdwater
The source site of this article gets revised often, as better information comes along. For the most up-to-date version, links and the related photos, the reader may consider reviewing the direct link as follows:
www.tallarmeniantale.com/samantha-powTIME.htm
-----------------------------------------------------
Back row left to right: Mike Pride (Editor, Concord Monitor), Andrew Barnes (CEO, St. Petersburg Times), Rena Pederson (Editor, Dallas Morning News), Paul Steiger (Mng. Ed., Wall Street Journal), Henry Gates (Humanities Professor, Harvard University), Jay Harris (Director, Journalism and Democracy, USC), Joann Byrd (Editorial Page Ed., Seattle Post-Inteligencer), David Kennedy (History Professor, Stanford University), Amanda Bennett (Editor, Lexington Herald-Leader), Anders Gyllenhaal (Editor, Star Tribune), Richard Oppel (Editor, Austin American-Statesman), Lee Bollinger (President, Columbia University). Front row left to right: Donald Graham (Chairman, Washington Post), William Safire (New York Times), Sandra Rowe (Editor, The Oregonian), Sig Gissler (Administrator, Grad. School of Journalism, Columbia), John Carroll (Editor, Los Angeles Times), Louis Boccardi (CEO, Associated Press); not pictured: David Klatell, (Dean, Grad. School of Journalism, Columbia).
Labels: Aram Andonian, Holdwater
8.9.07
1950) Robert Fisk And The Armenian Question
Robert Fisk is a renown English journalist, whose area of specialization is the Middle East in general, and the Palestinian question in particular. A while back, he was brought under the influence of the Armenians as a result of which he began writing on the Armenian question ever so often. At times he would do so without any occasional cause and would direct harsh criticisms against the Republic of Turkey which bears no responsibility for the relocation of the Armenians.
Robert Fisk wrote a long article entitled “The Forgotten Holocaust” published in The Independent on August the 28th. By way of setting forth his dialogue with Hayk Demoyan, director of the Museum of the Armenian Genocide, Fisk reiterated nearly all arguments advanced till this date in support of the Armenian genocide allegation. The task of disproving these arguments is not a difficult one.
Before turning to the two most striking issues to be found in this article, we would like to state that the Museum of the Armenian Genocide located in Yerevan is essentially dedicated to depicting how the Armenians were subjected to genocide at the hands of Turks. In this sense, it is primarily an abode of propaganda as opposed to scientific research.
Concerning Fisk’s article, the first issue which strikes one’s attention relates to the photographs handed over to Robert Fisk by Demoyan who stated that they came from the archives of the German Deutsche Bank which provided financing to support the Turkish railway system in 1915. One of these photographs reportedly displays dozens of Armenians stuffed into wagons just outside the city of Erzurum.
However, no evidence has been provided for in support of how those seen in this very picture (or the other pictures for that matter) are Armenians; nor is any proof provided for substantiating the claim that these pictures were taken in Erzurum or the surrounding area. In fact, according to Assoc. Prof. Suavi Aydın, it is not possible that the mentioned photograph could have been taken in Erzurum. At the time there was no railway reaching to Northern Syria (the area to which the Armenians were relocated) from Erzurum. There was a railway reaching to Kars (from Erzurum) however, it was not operational during the war.
It has been cited that a crescent and star appears on the wagons seen in these pictures. However, Prof. Zafer Toprak has stated that these crescent and stars do not correspond to those used during the Ottoman period but rather correspond to those used during the period of the Republic. As such it appears that the pictures in question were tampered with.
It should be made note of how this does not constitute the first such case of unauthenticated photographs having been set forth as constituting snapshots of the Armenian relocation. The best known case in this regard is the pictures Armin Wegner (of German nationality) supposedly taken by himself. According to general wisdom, these pictures were intended to be used as supporting evidence in the publications of protestant priest Johannes Lepsius endeavoring to depict that the Armenians were murdered. Cem Özgönül’s book Der Mythos Eines Völkermordes (The Myth of a Genocide) is highly recommended for those interested in gaining insight on Lepsius’s intentions and the errors as well as fraudulent alterations in his books.
Apart from the pictures discussed above, regarding Fisk’s recently published article, drawing an equal degree of attention is the claim that there exists an authentic copy of a cable sent by Talat Pasha to his prefect in Aleppo ordering the destruction of all Armenians living in Turkey.
For the Armenian relocation of 1915-1916 to classify as genocide, it must be proved that the Armenians were murdered at the behest of the Ottoman Government. As an order issued by the government or any other official authority to this end could not be found, the Armenians have been forging documents ever since. The best-known example of such forgery is the book entitled The Memoirs of Naim Bey published in English and French by an Armenian, Aram Andonian. According to this book, Andonian meet an Ottoman officer by the name of Naim Bey who gave him the telegraphs -written in cipher alongside their decoded texts- sent by Talat Pasha to his prefect in Aleppo. The book provides for pictures of these coded documents and thus those who read it end up convinced that Talat Pasha truly did give such orders. As a matter of fact, Andonian’s book was, for 60 years, used as the main evidence of the Armenian genocide allegations. In 1982, the late Şinasi Oral and Süreyya Yücel working at the Directorate of Ottoman Archives, began searching for the documents mentioned in this book, but they were never found. However, they came across certain facts which depicted how these documents were fraudulent.
Ottoman documents begin with the letter “elif” ( the first letter of the Arabic alphabet), which is the shortened version of the “besmele” ( meaning “in the name of the merciful and benevolent God”). In the documents cited in Andonian’s book, the letter “elif” was not to be found. According to the Ottoman registry, the dates on the documents in question did not correspond to those dealing with Armenians. This was also the case concerning the registration numbers on these documents. Furthermore, the style of writing used in these documents did not coincide with the official Ottoman style of writing. In the coded documents three digit groups of numbers were used, however, the Ministry of Interior utilized 4 digit numbers. Also, the person who apparently received the orders during that time was not the prefect of Aleppo. In fact, it appears that there was not even an officer who went by the name of Naim Bey in Aleppo. These findings are to be found in the book entitled The Talat Pasha "Telegrams": Historical Fact or Armenian Fiction?, published by the Turkish Historical Association in 1983 (recommended to those interested in the Armenian Question which can be accessed via our Institute’s website by going to the ‘Books Out of Print’ section).
The book in question had a resounding effect among those circles advancing the genocide allegation. In the 1980’s several writers, Vahank Dadrian taking the lead, strived to defend Andonian’s book. However, one can not forever hide the truth. In the 1990’s references to Andonian’s book to support genocide allegations decreased and thereafter was essentially no longer referred to.
At present a telegram attributed to Talat Pasha has surfaced which we believe is also fake. However, if Demoyan insists that it is authentic, we believe it would become necessary that the said document is analyzed by a Turk, an Armenian and an agreed upon third party specialist and that the outcome is published.
Omer Engin LUTEM /
04 September 2007 ERAREN
Labels: Aram Andonian, O E LUTEM, Robert Fisk
20.6.07
1755) Free E-Book : Armenian Mythomania - Illustrated Expose by Erich Feigl

Armenian Extremism: Its Causes and Historical Context . .
A Personal Foreword "Have you gone crazy?" - "Are you tired of living?" These were the comments of friends and acquaintances when they heard that I was working on a book about the causes and historical context of Armenian terrorism. Why should / be the one to take on such a dangerous subject?.. . Shouldn't it be a matter for the Turks and Armenians to work out among themselves? All of my friends considered my project dangerous, even threatening, and I realized that it must be these concerns, these fears, that have until now prevented unbiased accounts of the historical reality behind Armenian terrorism from appearing.
People are obviously afraid of reprisals and therefore leave the whole issue to the advocates of reckless violence, who control virtually all the literature on the subject. In virtually every publication that discusses the Armenian question or Armenian terrorism, the authors plead for "understanding" toward terror. This is just as remarkable as when terrorist organizations claim "responsibility" after an attack.
With this "responsibility" - or rather with the perversion of this noble concept - they pretend to have "power" by creating the illusion of "justice", and with this legitimation they play fate, shoot down the reluctant and blackmail the hesitant.
It is not only human beings who have fates, however, but films and publications as well. HABENT SUA FATA LIBELLI, "books have fates", wrote Terentianus Maurus around 200 A.D., and in the preceeding verse he says resolutely, "PRO CAPTU LECTORIS", "according to the grasp of the reader".
I had two key experiences in this connection following the appearance of the German edition of this book. The first was with a very high official of the Armenian Orthodox (Gregorian) Church of Central Europe who, in the course of a meeting with the (Catholic) Mekhitarists (who truly have nothing to do with this statement), said to my face, "How dare you set the worthless Turks off against the dead Armenians in your book!" When I asked in horror if I had understood correctly, he repeated even more vehemently, "Yes, I said the worthless Turks!"
The Armenian view of history is for the most part shared by the public at large. That is no surprise, and it should not be taken as a reproach.
While doing the background research for this book and for my films, I took great pains to collect information from a broad spectrum of sources. In so doing, 1 met many people to whom I owe the deepest respect: His Beatitude the Armenian Apostolic Patriarch Snork Kalutsyan of Istanbul, for example, and the doctors and nurses of the Armenian hospital in the same city. I mention these people here in lieu of the many, many noble Armenians whom I know - from scholars and intellectuals to the Armenian farmers and their families who live on Musa Dagh, made famous by Franz Werfel. I did, of course, also meet other people in the course of my research work. I especially recall Dr. Gerard Libaridian, the head of the Armenian Zorian Institute. I spent several hours with Dr. Libaridian in his .office in Cambridge, Massachusetts and had an extremely interesting conversation with him. Dr. Libaridian is a brilliant man, bubbling with vitality, knowledge, talent, and self-confidence. One could write a very compelling play based on my conversation with him.
I kept notes of my host's most provocative statements in this fascinating discussion. Several times he mentioned the so-called "Andonian papers".
Since it seemed reasonable to assume that Dr. Libaridian knew that the papers were forgeries, I did not want to waste a single word on the subject. There were so many other, more interesting things to talk about. But remarkably enough, he stuck with Aram Andonian's book and its "documents". Finally, I had to say, "But Doctor Libaridian, you know as well as I that these 'Andonian papers' are forgeries!"
I will never forget Dr. Libaridian's answer or his facial expression as he replied simply and briefly to my reproach:
"AND?" KHOJALI GENOCIDE committed by Armenia in 26 February 1992. "AND?"
INTRODUCTION By Afif Erzen, Istanbul
It is hard to imagine anything that could be as detrimental to the search for historical truth as mixing stories with history - or worse yet, confusing one for the other. A similar error involves the confusion of politics with the use of violence. All too often, such confusions are the result of interest groups (seldom of peoples, who always want peace) laying claim to their "historical homeland". Such "historical demands" have always meant war, or at least terrorism, an ugly variation on war. The right to sovereignty and independence can only be seen as legitimate when it is bound up with the rights of a majority.
Anything else would contradict our commonly recognized democratic principles. Even the Armenian apologists for an "Armenian state" on Turkish territory clearly share this way of thinking. This is demonstrated by their support of the Greek Cypriots over the Turkish minority. Many people try to give a superficial glimmer of "legitimacy" to the contemporary Armenian claims to Turkish lands in eastern Anatolia. These people are simply ignoring the fact that those demands violate the law of nations and international law since virtually no Armenians whatsoever live in the regions claimed. The standard counterargument that Armenians once lived in these areas is indeed correct, but it fails to consider one important fact: Even before 1915, the Armenians only made up a small minority (roughly a sixth) of the population in the land claimed by them. This minority had not enjoyed any kind of national sovereignty since long before the arrival of the Seljuks in Anatolia - in other words, for nearly a millennium. Aside from that, the Armenian minority was in a "state of war" with their own Ottoman government in 1915. The Armenians' own national leaders confirmed this repeatedly. They had started a civil war that had produced a genuine bloodbath among the Islamic inhabitants in eastern Anatolia, mainly in Van.
Another myth, which is equally detrimental to historical truth, involves the attempt to justify Armenian claims to eastern Anatolia on the basis of the alleged "descent" of the Armenians from the Urartians. In virtually every publication put out or supported by the Armenian side, there appears, in one form or another, a certain picture of history. This picture gives the impression that the history of the Haik - as the "Armenians" call themselves - in eastern Anatolia goes back to the second millenium before Christ. This impression is created by simply tacking the history of the Urartians onto that of the Haik. This is made much easier by the fact that many people today confuse the inhabitants of the historical province of Armenia with "the Armenians", who actually call themselves "Haik", as mentioned above, and are only one of the countless groups that have lived in the historical region of Armenia in the course of history.
This appropriation of the history of Urartu is the final attempt of certain Armenian historians and propagandists to bridge the gap between the Haik and their political and historical claims to the historical province of Armenia. This effort was begun after an older attempt, claiming that the Haik were the first legitimate heirs of Noah (based on the Ararat legend), failed due to sheer ludicracy.
The foundation inscription of Sardurihinili was discovered in incredibly good condition by Afif Erzen. It was written in Urartian, an Asian, agglutinative language showing strong similarities to the Ural-Altaic language family and in particular to Turkish. The inscription has been translated by Emin Bilgic (sumerologist at Ankara University):
Line 1 Sardur, son of Argishti, "built" this temple for the god Irmushini. "So says Sardur. " Line 2 Because I ascended my father's throne, says Sardur something of this nature has- never been built "in past times". Line 3 I "built up" a temple throne for the god Haldi there. For the god Irmushini and for this fortress Line 4 I have "had" a canal from the Hoshap River "built, and with" wine gardens, fields and vegetable gardens. I have Line 5 surrounded this town. These magnificent "buildings I have . .
Content
A Personal Foreword 7
Introduction 10
Urartians: Their Language and Their Heritage 12
Armenia: Myth and Historical Reality 18
The Prehistoric Cultures of Eastern Anatolia –A Key to The Understanding of The History of Anatolia 19
Seljuks, Mongol Invaders and Ottomans 26
Jews in the Ottoman Empire 28
The Greek Orthodox - Patriarchate 30
The Armenian Orthodox Patriarchate 32
The Triumph of the Ottomans in Eastern Anatolia and Cilicia 38
The Causes of the Armenian Tragedy 39
The Rivalry Among the Churches and Sects to Win the Favor of the Ottoman Armenians 39
The Beginning of the End -The Formation of a Protestant 41
The Catholic Armenians 41
The Nineteenth Century: A Golden Age for Armenians and Ottomans, in Spite of the Beginnings of Nationalistic Agitating from Abroad 46
Great-Power Politics and the Armenian Question 50
It´s only one step from myth and mythology to mythomania 56
Mark Sykes, the Zealots of Zeitun and the Reckless Revolutionaries 62
The Mechitarists as a Special Kind of Victim of Armenian Terror 67
The truth about the present-day Mechitarists of San Lazzaro 68
Nationalism Spreads From the Church to Secular Organizations 70
The Bab-i Ali Demonstration, the Hunchaks, and the Kusaktsakan 72
One of the climaxes of Armenian terror: The raid on the Ottoman Bank 74
The Armenians' Last Chance - Blown by the Dashnaks 76
May 17, 1915 The Armenians invade Van and set fire to the Muslim part of the town 79
The Relocation Decision: Its Causes and Consequences 81
The Armenian myth of victimhood stands or falls on two legs: the date April 24, 1915, and Franz Werfel's literary masterpiece,
"The Forty Days of Musa Dagh". 88
The Anglo-French Attack on Constantinople, through the narrows and across the sea Marmara, was now imminent. Date: April 24! 91
The mountain of Moses and the lowlands of Alma and Franz Werfel 97
Alma, the alter ego of Franz 98
The poet and his world 100
The bed-sheets of the Musa Dagh-fighters 105
Werfel´s substratum of "Truth" 106
A Gang of Forgers 108
The Forgeries of Aram Andonian and Johannes Lepsius 110
The Collapse of the Central Powers and the Continuing Resistance of the Ottoman Empire 117
The Turmoil of a War That Would Not End 120
The Wars of the Republic of Armenia 123
The Reconquest of Kars and the End of Armenian Expansion 126
An Equally Tragic Sequel on the Southern Front 128
The Treaties of Gümrü, Moscow and finally Kars 130
The End of the Armenian-Greek Invasion 131
Terrorism as Bloody Real Fantasy-War 136
The Armenian Terrorist Organizations 139
The Political Background of the Armenian Terrorist Organization ASALA 140
Some examples of Armenian tirades of hatred: They poisoned worldwide public opinion. A myth of mental terror. 142
Water and oil Turkey, the energy bridge of the third millenium 144
Armenia´s war of aggression against Azerbaijan: a barrel burst 144
The strange inherent similarity between the sons of William Tell and those of Haik: Mythomaniac teachings on descent 145
Grounds for the judgment 147
A masterpiece of ignorance 150
Genocide - Holocaust - Terror 154
Armenian Genocide Resource Center ( http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com ) Editor's Note:
We encourage you to buy the printed copy of the book from the official distributors although we have a special permission from the copyright owner to distribute this book's digital version, free of charge, only, under the http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com site.
If/when you have access to the copy, You Understand and Accept The Condition That This Is For personal Study Purposes Only, And You Are Not Allowed To Redistribute This E-book At All.
We have removed the pdf version for the time being, so that the owner benefits from the books sold.
Here's just a plain text version:
Labels: Aram Andonian, Erich FEIGL, Free E-Books, Khojaly
