3502) Richard G Hovannisian On Lieutenant Robert Steed Dunn - A Review Note By Heath W Lowry

. . .

Read Full Post !

1359) The U.S. Congress and Adolf Hitler on the Armenians

By Heath W. Lowry
Institute of Turkish Studies, Inc. Washington, D.C.
Political Communication and Persuasion, Volume 3, Number 2 (1985)

Abstract This article traces the history of a purported Adolf Hitler quote which cites the perecent of the world's lack of reaction to the fate of Armenians during the First World War as a justification for his planned extermination of European Jewry in the course of the Second World War. By a detailed examination of the genesis of this quotation the author demonstrates that there is no historical basis for attributing such a statement to Hitler. Likewise, the author tarces the manner in which this purported quote has entered the lexicon of U.S. Congressmen, and the manner in which it continues to be used by Armenian-Americans in their efforts to established a linkage between their own history and the tragic fate of European Jewry during the Second World War. The author concludes with a plea to policy-makers that they focus their activities on the responsibilities of their offices and leave the writing of history to the historians. . .

A casual perusal of the pages of the Congressional Record (CR), of both the House and the Senate, on or about April 24, 1984, reveals a bipartisan group of our elected officials condemning the failure of the Republic of Turkey to acknowledge and assume responsibility for the "genocide" of the Armenian people allegedly perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire in the course of the First World War. In 1984, a total of sixty-six such statements, fifty-seven by members of the House and nine by Senators, wire read into the Congressional Record. Of these sixty-six tributes in support of Armenian Martyrs' Day remembrances, exactly one third-twenty-two-contained one or another version of a quote attributed to Adolf Hitler in which he purportedly responded to a query about his planned annihilation of European Jewry, by quipping: "Who, after all, speaks today of the extermination of the Armenians?".

The Hitler Quote: Its Source and Its Avowed Focus
While the quiver anti-Turkish invectives utilized by Armenian spokesmen contains a number of arrows, none is more frequently unleashed than this charge that Adolf Hitler was encouraged by his perception that the world had not reacted to alleged Ottoman mistreatment of its Armenian population during the First World War. He thus felt justified in going forward with his plan to exterminate European Jewry during the Second World War.

Given the widespread utilization of this quotation by Armenian spokesmen and their supporters, perhaps we should not be too surprised at the fact that it has found its way into the lexicon of our lawmakers. Even the dean of Armenian-American historians, Professor Richard Hovannisian of UCLA, stated in a 1983 address to the World Affairs Council of Pittsburgh, "Perhaps Adolf Hitler had good cause in 1939 to declare, according to the Nuremberg trial transcripts, "Who, after all, speaks today of the extermination of the Armenians?" s(1) "Is it any wonder, then, that the following list of elected U.S. officials repeat the same charge?

Senator Rude Boschwitz, R-Minn.; Senator Carl Levin, D-Mich.; Senator Howard Metzenbaum, D-Ohio.; Congressman Les Aspin, D-Wis.; Congressman Howard Berman, D-Calif.; Congressman Thomas Bliley, R-Va.; Congressman Edward Boland, D-Mass.; Congresswoman Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.; Congressman Edward Feighan, D-Ohio.; Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro, D-N.Y.; Congressman Hamilton Fish, R-N.Y.; Congressman William Ford, D-Mich.; Congressman Sam Gejdenson, D-Conn.; Congressman William Green, R-N.Y.; Congressman Richard Lehman, D-Calif.; Congressman Bruce Morrison, D-Conn.; Congressman Nicholas Mavroules, D-Mass.; Congressman Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.; Congressman James Shannon, D-Mass.; and Congressman Henry Waxman, D-Calif.

It is noteworthy that sixteen of the above-listed officials (with the exception of Boxer, Courter, Dymally, Feighan, Ford, and Schumer) all clearly state that That Hitler made his statement in support of this planned extermination of European Jewry. Equally noteworthy is the fact that the three Senators, Boschwitz, Levin, and Metzenbaum, and four of the members of the House, Berman, Gejdenson, Green, and Waxman, who made this linkage are themselves Jews.

The problem with this linkage is that there is no proof that Adolf Hitler ever made such a statement. Everything written to date has attributed the purported Hitler quote, not to primary sources, but to an article that appeared in the Times of London on Saturday, November 24, 1945. Said article, entitled "Nazi Germany's Road To War," (2) cites the quote and bases its attribution to Hitler on an address b, him to his commanders-in-chief six year earlier, on August 22, 1939, a few days prior to his invasion of Poland. According to the unnamed author of the Times article, the speech had been introduced as evidence during the November 23, 1945, session of the Nuremberg Tribunal. Hitler is quoted as having stated. "Thus for the time being I have sent to the East only my Death's Head units, with the order to kill without pity or mercy all men, women, and children of the Polish race or language. Who still talks nowadays of the extermination of the Armenians?"(3) However , this version of the address was never accepted as evidence in this or any other session of the Nuremberg Tribunal.

Furthermore, the Times article of November 24, 1945, was not the earliest mention of Hitler's alleged statement on the Armenians. Rather, this quotation, and indeed an entire text of a Hitler speech purportedly made at Obersalzberg on August 22, 1939, was first published in 1942 in a book entitled What About Germany? and authored by Louis Lochner, a former bureau chief of the Associated Press in Berlin." (4)

On the opening page of his work, Lochner cites an unnamed Speech to the Supreme Commanders, and Commanding Generals, Obersalzberg, August 22, 1939." He further states that he obtained a copy of this speech (a three-page typed German manuscript) one week prior to Hitler's 1939 invasion of Poland. (5)

This "document", the provenance of which has never been disclosed, investigated, and much less established, is the real "source," and indeed the sole source, of Hitler's purported remark vis-ı-vis the Armenians. In its historical debut, as published by Lochner, the "quote" reads as follows:

I have issued the command-I'll have anybody who utters one word of criticism executed by a firing squad-that our war aim does not consist in reaching certain lines, but in the physical destruction of the enemy. Accordingly, I have placed my death-head formations in readiness-for the present only in the East-with compassion, men, women, and children of Polish derivation and language. Only thus shall we gain the living space (lebensraum) which we need. Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians." (6)

Of particular interest is the fact that while this "question" has appeared in literally hundreds of publications in the past forty years, not a single one has ever cited Lochner's book as its source. Likewise, no work has ever suggested that this statement made its first appearance, not in the course of the 1945 Nuremberg trials, but rather in the 1942 wartime publication of an American newspaperman.

Of equal interest, assuming for the moment that Lochner's unnamed informant did in fact supply him with an authentic copy of Hitler's Obersalzberg remarks, in the total absence in this text of a single direct or implied reference to the Jewish people. Obviously, it is an anti-Polish polemic; the single reference it contains to the Armenians is clearly made in that context. In Lochner's version, Hitler states.

Accordingly, I have placed my death-head formations in readiness-for the present only in the East-with orders to them to send to death mercilessly and without compassion, men, women, and children of Polish derivation and language. Only thus shall we gain the living space (lebensraum) which we need. Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians" (7)

Here there is no ambiguity in his meaning, If Hitler actually made this statement it obviously referred to his impending invasion of Poland and to the fate he envisioned for its citizenry; it had absolutely nothing to do with his plans for the Jews of Europe. This fact in and of itself belies the allegation of those sixteen members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives who in their statements in conjunction with the April 24 remembrance of Armenian Martyrs' Day, insisted that Hitler's remarks expressed the rationale for his slaughter of the Jews.

Interestingly enough, of the twenty-two elected representatives who incorporated the alleged Hitler quote into their Congressional remarks, only one, Congressman William Ford (D-Mich), correctly identified the time and context of the statement attributed to Hitler. Ford said, "Even Adolf Hitler used past events to shape his own policies. In 1939 as he was beginning his invasion of Poland, Hitler ordered the mass extermination of its inhabitants, commenting, "Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?" (8) In contrast, most of his colleagues displayed their lack of knowledge about the subject they purported to address by the use of phrases such as:

"When Adolf Hitler was planning the extermination of the Jewish people..." (Aspin).

When Hitler first proposed his final solution..........(Boschwitz).

... on the eve of the extermination of the Jews (Berman).

Hitler's statement concerning the final solution for the Jews of Europe...(Bliley).

Hitler who while planning the extermination of millions of Jews was asked ... (Boland).

We can only be haunted by the words of Adolf Hitler, who said, in embarking on this "crazed attack" on the Jews, "Who after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?" (Ferraro).

In speaking of the consequences of the Jewish Holocaust, Adolf Hitler once remarked...(Fish).

Hitler, before beginning his Holocaust against the Jews ... (Gejdenson).

When Hitler was about to begin the Holocaust ... (Green).

Questioned about his policy of Jewish genocide, Hitler said.... (Lehman).

Looking at the Armenian genocide as a precedent for his own Holocaust perpetrated against Europe's Jews ...(Morrison).

Etc., etc., etc. (9)

The Hitler Quote and the Nuremberg Trials
Having established that the first published appearance of Hitler's alleged remark on the Armenians occurred in the 1942 Lochner book, we will now examine the history of its subsequent appearance in the course of the Nuremberg trials. It is necessary to state at the outset, however, that contrary to Professor Hovannisian in the above-mentioned quote, and a whole body of scholars writing on the Holocaust, the Nuremberg trials transcripts do not in fact contain the purported Hitler quote. Instead, the Nuremberg transcripts clearly demonstrate that the tribunal rejected Lochner's version of Hitler's Obersalzberg speech in favor of two more official versions found in confiscated German military records. These two records are, respectively, detailed notes of the August 22, 1939, meeting taken down by Admiral Hermann Boehm, Chief of the High Seas Fleet, who was in attendance; (10) and an unsigned memorandum in two parts which provides a detailed account of Hitler's August 22, 1939, remark at Obersalzberg. This document originated in the Chief of the High Command of the Armed Forces (Oberkommando der Wehrmacht [OKW]) files and was captured by American troops at Saalfelden in Austria. This was the chief document introduced by the prosecutor at Nuremberg as evidence in the course of the session concerned with the invasion of Poland. (11) In addition, a third eyewitness account of the obersalzberg meetings is found in the detailed diary kept by General Halder. (12)

These three versions, the first two of which are in fact preserved in the transcripts of the Nuremberg Tribunal, are internally consistent one with the other in regard to the wording of Hitler's Obrsalzberg speech. Of primary importance in the context of this study is the fact that none these three eyewitness versions contains any reference whatsoever to Armenians.

The noted historian of the Second World War William Shirer reconstructed his account of the Obersalzberg meeting strictly on the basis of the Boehm notes, the Halder diary, and the captured memorandum. (13) In explaining his failure to incorporate the "Lochner version," he wrote with characteristic understatement, "it may have been embellished a little by persons who were not present at the meeting at the Berghof." (14)

An examination of the Nuremberg transcripts from the afternoon session of November 26, 1945, enables us to piece together the actual sequence of events which let to the Times of London article on November 24, 1945, which, as has been stated, is the source of all post-1945 references to the alleged Hitler quote.

From these records it becomes apparent that a total of three documents dealing with the August 22, 1939 speech were discussed in the course of the November 26, 1945, session of the tribunal. Called, respectively, US-28, US-29, and US-30, two of the three were subsequently introduced as evidence and preserved in the records of the trials: US-29 (Document Number 798-PS) and US-30 ëDocument Number 1014-PS). The third document, US-28, was not introduced as evidence by the prosecution. An examination of the Nuremberg transcript provides the following detail in regard to these three documents. The prosecutor, Mr. Alderman, introduced the subject thus:

In this presentation of condemning document, concerning the initiation of the war in September 1939, I must bring to the attention of the Tribunal a group of documents concerning an address by Hitler to his chief military commanders, at Obersalzberg on 22 August 1939, just one week prior to the launching of the attack on Poland.

We have three of these documents, related and constituting a single group. The first one I do not intend to offer as evidence. The other two I small offer.

The reason for that is this: the first of the three document came into our possession through the medium of an American newspaperman and purported to be original minutes of this meeting at Obersalzberg, transmitted to this American newspaperman by some other person; and we had no proof of the actual delivery to the intermediary by the person who took the notes. That document, therefore, merely served to alert our Prosecution to see if we could find something better. Fortunately, we did get the other two documents, which indicate that Hitler on that day made two speeches, perhaps one in the morning we captured. By comparison of these two documents with the first document, we concluded that the first documents was a slightly garbled merger of the two speeches.

On 22 August 1939 Hitler had called together at Obersalzberg the three Supreme Commanders of the three branches of the Armed Forces, as well as the commanding generals bearing the title Commanders-in-Chief (Oberbefehlshaber).

I have indicated how, upon discovering this first document, the Prosecution set out to find better evidence of what happened on this day. In this the Prosecution succeeded. In the files of the OKW at Flensburg, the Oberkommando der Wehmacht (Chief of the high Command of the Armed Forces), there were uncovered two speeches delivered by Hitler at Obersalzberg, on 22 August 1939. These are document 798-PS and 1014-PS in our series of documents.

In order to keep the serial numbers consecutive, if the Tribunal please, we have had the first document, which I do not intend to offer, marked for identification Exhibit USA-28. Accordingly, I offer the second document, 798-PS, in evidence as Exhibit USA-30. (15)

Once again we must note the obvious: Neither of the obersalzberg speeches introduced to the tribunal as evidence by Alderman (US-29/798-PS and US-30/1014-PS) contains any reference to Armenians.

Dr. Otto Stahmer, the defense counsel for hermann G–ring, took exception to Mr. Aldermar's presentation, stating, "The third document which was not read is, according to the photo static copy in the Defense's document room, simply typewritten. There is no indication of place or times of execution." (16) This led to the following exchange between the president of the tribunal and Dr. Stahmer:

The President: Well, we have got nothing to do with the third document, because it has not been read.

Dr. Stahmer: Mr. President, this document has nevertheless been published in the press and was apparently given to the press by the Prosecution. Consequently both the Defense and the defendants have a lively interest in giving a short explanation of the facts concerning these documents.

THE PRESIDENT: The tribunal is trying this case in accordance with the evidence and not in accordance with what is in the press, and the third document is not in evidence before us. (17)

The discussion was then joined by Prosecutor Alderman who made the following response to Dr. Stahmer's charge that "the third document" (US-28) had been "leaked to the press, and had already appeared in print:

On the other question referred to by counsel, I feel somewhat guilty. It is quite true that, by a mechanical slip, the press got the first document (US-28), which we never at all intended them to have. I feel somewhat responsible. It happened to be included in the document books which were handed up to the Court on Friday, because we had only intended to refer to it and give it an identification mark and not to offer it. I had thought that no documents would be released to the press until they were actually offered in evidence. With as large an organization as we have, it is very difficult to police all these matters. (18)

As the reader has doubtless discerned. US-28, the document provided to the prosecution by "an American newspaperman," which was not introduced as evidence after he original minutes of the obersalzberg meeting were found, is the source of the alleged Hitler statement on Armenians. Aided by the passages quoted above from the Nuremberg transcript for appeared in the Times of London on Saturday, November 24, 1945. To make his deadline the unidentified times reporter based his story on a leaked document on he assumption that it (US-28) would have been introduced in evidence by the time his story broke on Saturday. As the transcript clearly attests, the reporter's expectations in this regard were not fulfilled. The results were far-reaching: The world has been misled for almost forty years into thinking that the Nuremberg transcripts provided the Times reporter with his source for the quote attribute to Hitler, "Who still talks nowadays of the extermination of the Armenians?" Armenian spokesmen have been free to argue that Adolf Hitler justified his planned annihilation of the Jews on the world's failure to react to the alleged Ottoman genocide of the Armenians during the First World War. The Armenian success in this regard is clearly reflected in the April 24, 1984, Congressional Record.

In truth, no document containing the purported Hitler statement on the Armenians was introduced or accepted as evidence in the course of the Nuremberg trials. In fact, the actual minutes of Hitler's August 22, 1939 Obersalzberg speeches (recovered from the files of the Chief of the High Command of the Armed Forces as Flensburg), as well as the detained notes complied during the speeches by Admiral Hermann Boehm, Chief of the High Seas Fleet, and the record preserved in General Halder's diary, are all totally devoid of anything resembling this alleged quote. In short, contrary to Richard Hovanisian and a host of other Armenian spokesman, the Nuremberg transcripts through their preservation of US-29 (798-PS), US-30 (1014-PS), and the notes of admiral Boehm (which are corroborated by the relevant passages from the diary of General Halder), in no way authenticate the infamous Hitler quote. On the contrary, by establishing the actual texts of Hitler's Obersalzberg speeches they demonstrate that the statement is conspicuously absent from Hitler's remarks. The assertion that Hitler made a reference to the Armenians in any context whatsoever is without foundation.

What About Lochner's What About Germany?
Was Louis Lochner the "unidentified American newspaperman" who provided the Nuremberg prosecutor with the purported transcript of the Obersalzberg meeting (US-28 or L-3, as it is variously known), which contains the alleged Hitler quote on the Armenians? And, in fact was the version of the August 22, 1939, Obersalzber speech published in Lochner's 1942 book and that supplied by the "unidentified American newspaperman" at Nuremberg one and the same document?

The answer to both these queries is a resounding "yes". As regards the identity of the "unidentified American newspaperman," in a later book (Always the unexpected). (19) Lochner quotes with some pride a passage from W. Byford-Jones's Berlin Twilight (20) regarding his role in supplying this document to the Nuremberg Tribunal. It reads:

My coming with Louis Lockner [sic] had made the visit more exciting because he was no ordinary observer at the historic trial of the major war criminals. He had told me how he was responsible for the delivery of one of the most sensational of innumerable documents to prove Nazi conspiracy. This document, which described how Hitler maliciously planned the beginning of the Second World War by an attack on Poland... was given to Louis Lockner in Germany just before America came into the war, by a confidant of Colonel-General von Beck, and, having first written on top of it ""Ein Stuck gemeine Propaganda" (A piece of filthy propaganda) (to protect himself if the Germans searched him), he smuggled it to America. (21)

Since lochner related same story in the 1942 What About Germany? in regard to his initial receipt of the purported Obersalzberg transcript, there can be no doubt that the was Alderman's "unidentified American newspaperman." (22)

Furthermore, all three known versions of the speech containing the "who remembers the Armenians" passage (see Appendix II)-Lochner's 1942 What About Germany? version; US-28 (or L-3), the document discussed at the November 26 session of the Nuremberg Tribunal; and the one quoted in the Times of London article of November 24, 1945-are identical copies of the same document, i.e., the one which Lochner in 1956 finally identified as having come into has possession from a confidant of Colonel-General Beck, (23) An awareness of Beck's role in the purveyance of this version of the speech may lend insight into the differences between the Lochner version, which was not accepted by the Nuremberg Tribunal, and the two sets of minutes of the Obersalzberg meetings that were accepted by the Nuremberg Tribunal and the Halder diary account (see Appendix III): Admiral Boehm's minutes of the meetings; and General Halder's minutes of the meetings.

By August 1939 General Beck was the acknowledged leader, along with Halder, of that faction of the German officer corps plotting against Hitler and the Nazis. (24) If, as Lochner claimed, he had received his version of the Obersalzberg speech via Beck, i.e., if it were leaked to him as an American newspaperman by forces opposed to Hitler, this could well account for Shier's assessment of the Lochner version as "embellished a little by persons who were not present at the Berghof." (25) His assessment is in fact a gross understatement. A comparison of the Lochner version with the Nuremberg and Halder versions, shows that the former contains far more than a little ""embellishment." Passages which would have lent themselves to stronger anti-Hitler propaganda found in the Lochner version, are totally missing from the Nuremberg and Halder versions. These include the following phrases each of which, if published in the West, would have effectively portrayed Hitler in an extremely negative light to his allies (or potential allies), to the neutrals, and to the rest of the world:

Mussolini is threatened by a nit-wit of a king and the treasonable scoundrel of a crown prince.

After Stalin's death-he is a very sick man-we shall demolish the Soviet Union.

The (Japanese) Emperor is a counterpart of the last Czar. Weak, cowardly, undecided.

I got to know those wretched worms, Daladier and Chamberlain, in Munich.

(The peoples of the Far East and Arabia are) at best lacquered semi apes who crave to be flogged.

Carol of Romania is a thoroughly corrupt slave of his sexual desires.

The King of Belgium and the Nordic Kings are soft jumping jacks.

I'll have anybody who utters but one word of criticism executed by a firing squad.

(I have given) orders to send to death mercilessly, and without compassion, men, women, and children of Polish derivation and language. Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians? (26)

In short, a comparison of the Lochner and Nuremberg versions of the August 22, 1939, Obersalzberg speech, strongly suggest that the one leaked to Lochner by the confidant of Beck was a strongly doctored version designed for propaganda purposes. This interpretation is supported by the fact the General Halder's detailed diary entries for August 22, 1939, contain none of the above passages. Halder was, by that date, firmly in the ranks of the anti-Hitler German officers, and presumably the would have had no interest in censoring his own diary had Hitler in fact made such statements. (27)

While it way never be possible to completely reconstruct the reasons behind these addenda to the Obersalzberg speech and the manner in which they were made, nor why Lochner was chosen as the conduit to transmit them to the West, one thing is certain: The only versions of the obersalzberg speech containing any reference to the Armenians derive from a single source-Louis P.Lochner.

Thus, not only is the provenance of US-28 (L-3) doubtful, but the actual transcripts of Hitler's Obersalzberg speech (US-30/1104-PS, Boehm, and Halder) are at total variance with the text of the Lochner version vis-ı-vis the alleged Armenian statement (compare Appendices II and III). Therefore one cannot help but share the opinions of the Nuremberg prosecutor and William Shirer and reject the Lochner version.

Why Has the Lochner Version Assumed the Importance That It Has?
Why and how has bunch a spurious quotation of forty-five years ago become so important that it has been cited by no fewer than twenty-two members of the U.S. Congress in 1984? The answer is complex and closely linked to American ethnic politics. Taking advantage of the flurry of press interest aroused by the activities of Armenian terrorist groups, activities which in the past decade have resulted in the assassinations of over thirty-five Turkish diplomats, (28) Armenian-American spokesmen have stepped up their ongoing campaign of vilification against the Republic of Turkey which they allege was responsible for the "genocide" of more than 1.5 million Armenians during the First World War. Unhampered by the limitations of logic or truth, these spokesmen attempt to justify current Armenian violence against innocent diplomats to Armenian suffering in the course of the First World War.

In terms of logic (or the lack thereof), this is comparable to the descendants of peoples who suffered under the last Russian czars running around shooting Soviet diplomats today. Both the Soviet Union and the Republic of Turkey began their existence as revolutionary states in the wake of the First World War the former emerging from the ashes of the Russian empire, while the latter was created from the ruins of the 600-years-old Ottoman empire, the political entity in existence at the time of the alleged genocide.

A significant portion of Armenian propaganda efforts in recent years has bee devoted to establishing a linkage between their own historical experiences and those of European Jewry during the Second World War. The cornerstone in their case has long been the spurious Hitler quote, "Who, after all, speaks today of the extermination of the Armenians?" Certainly the argument that Hitler himself cited the world's lack to reaction to the fate of the Armenians and was encouraged by it, must be very poignant to Jews. The following examples will serve to illustrate the mileage hitherto obtained by Armenian-Americans in this regard:

1.Under the tutelage of an Armenian-American Congressman, Charles Pashayan, Jr. (R-Calif.), (29) sixty-six elected U.S. Representatives made speeches on or about April 24, 1984 (Armenian Martyrs' Day), condemning the Republic of Turkey, a NATO ally, for failing o acknowledge its responsibility for the "genocide" of the Armenians which allegedly transpired a decade before the Republic came into existence.

2.As noted earlier, seven of he twenty-two members of the U.S. congress (three Senators and four Congressman), who used the alleged Hitler quote in the course of their April 24, 1984, remarks, were Jewish.

3.Utilizing the "linkage" conveniently provided by the spurious Hitler quote, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council has agreed that the Armenians were the victims of the twentieth century's first genocide and therefore deserve inclusion in the planned memorial. Indeed Elie Wiesel, himself a Holocaust survivor and Chairman of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council, in a 1981 speech delivered in the Capitol rotunda stated. "Before the planning of the final solution Hitler asked, ëWho remembers the Armenians?' He was right. No one remembered them, as no one remembered the Jews. Rejected by everyone, they felt expelled from history." (30)

in a similar vein, Congressman Glenn Anderson, in his April 24, 1984, remarks, discussed the inclusion of the Armenians in the planned Holocaust Memorial Council, established by an act of Congress in 1980, has unanimously resolved to include the Armenian genocide in its museums and education programs."(31)

4.During the past two years a number of state boards of education have adopted into their programs Holocaust curricula which include detailed treatment of the Armenian "genocide" as the precursor of the Jewish Holocaust. The curricula adopted by the states of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Jersey all stress the spurious Hitler quote as the tie that binds the Armenian an Jewish experiences. In New Jersey, the curriculum was actually prepared and published by the B'nai B'rith anti-Defamation League. This is, to say the least, ironic, as the continued repetition of the spurious Hitler quote, as it is used today, certainly defames the Turkish people.

5. On September 10, 1984, the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously passed a resolution (House Joint Resolution 247) designating April 24 as a National Day of Remembrance of Man's Inhumanity to Man, and requesting the President of the United States to issue a proclamation calling upon the American people to observe such a day remembrance for all the victims of genocide, "especially the one and one-half million people of Armenian ancestry who were victims of the genocide perpetrated in Turkey between 1915 and 1923." (32)

This resolution, both by naming April 24 Armenian Martyrs' Day and by specifically naming only Turkey as the "perpetrator" of a "genocide," does nothing less than brand one of United States" NATO allies with the historically controversial charge of genocide. In regard to the label itself, the fact remains that years 1915 and 1923; rather, the governing power in the region was the multinational state known as the ottoman Empire."(33)

House Joint Resolution 247 was submitted by Congressman Tony Coehlo (D-Calif.) and 233 co-sponsors. Of interest to us is the fact that Coehlo, who represents the "heartland" of California's Armenian community (the Merced-Fresno region of the San Joaquin Valley), cited the purported Hitler quote in urging his colleagues to vote for passage of H. J. Res. 247." (34)

In addition to his own utilization of the quote, Coehla also entered a letter from California's Armenian-American Governor, George Deukmejain, supporting the resolution's passage in the record. In support of H. J. Res 247, Deukmejian wrote, "One cannot ignore the chilling words of Adolph Hitler before he began his reign of error during World War II, "Who still talks nowadays of the extermination of the Armenians?" (35)

At the time of this writing the U. S. Senate is considering the adoption of their half of this joint resolution.

Leaving aside the larger question of whether or not the fate of the Ottoman Armenians in 1914-1915 was in fact anything that could conceivably be termed a genocide, and focusing only on the matter at hand, the spurious Hitler quote, we find that three things come immediately to mind.

The first is the obvious danger inherent in partisan ethnic politics as currently practiced in the United States. To appease a handful of potential voters, some American politicians are willing to allow themselves to be used as tools of ethnic pressure groups, regardless of the truth or falsehood of the information they are fed.

Secondly, one cannot help but marvel at the patience of the Republic of Turkey, which, beleaguered by economic and social problems of its own, also has to cope with misinformed American politicians lecturing her on her own history. It is safe to say that if the U. S. Congress spent as much time hammering at the Federal Republic of Germany (another NATO ally) for the well-Documented events which transpired forty years ago in that nation's history, as they spend lecturing the Republic of Turkey for actions alleged to have occurred seventy years ago in the Ottoman empire, the North Atlantic Treaty organization would long since have lost a member.

Finally, given the serious problems facing our nation, e.g., the arms race, unemployment, and budget deficits, in conjunction with the fact that as this study has repeatedly demonstrated, history is clearly not the forte of many U.S. Congressmen and Senators, it is not impertinent to suggest that the Congress would be better served if its members were to confine their activities to the business at hand heave the writing of history to the historians.
Appendix I.
Experts from Congressional Speeches on the Armenians

SENATOR RUDY BOSCWITZ, R-Minn. (CR-Senate, 4/25/84, p. S4852): When Hitler first proposed his final solution, he was told that the world would never permit such a mass murder. Hitler silenced his advisers by asking, "Who remembers the Armenians?"

Today, I join my colleagues in answering Hitler by pledging the truth.

SENATOR CARL LEVIN, D-Mich. (CR-Senate, 4/24/84, p. S4703): But, regrettably it was soon forgotten, not by the surviving Armenians, but by most of the rest of the world. So that when Adolf Hitler planned his invasion of Poland and the destruction of the Jewish people, he was able to scornfully state, "Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?"

SENATOR HOWARD METZENBAUM, D-Ohio (CR-Senate, 4/24/84, p. S4719): Three years ago, in a speech given here in the Capital rotunda, Elie Wiesel, Chairman of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council, made a telling point.

Professor Wiesel said: "Before the planning of the final solution Hitler asked "Who remembers the Armenians?" He was right. No one remembered them, as no one remembered the Jews. Rejected by everyone, they felt expelled from history."

CONGRESSMAN LES ASPIN, D-Wis. (CR-House, 4/24/84, p. H2977): Two decades later, when adolf Hitler was planning the elimination of the Jewish people, he is reported to save said, "Who remembers the Armenians?"

CONGRESSMAN HOWARD BERMAN, D-Calif. (CR-House, 4/24/84, p.H2982): It should be a source of concern to all of us that to this day Turkey does not acknowledge, despite eyewitness accounts, either the facts or its historical responsibility; for the line from Armenia to Auschwitz is direct. The holocaust of European Jewry has its precedence in the events of 1915 to 1922. "Who still talks nowadays of the extermination of the Armenians, " Hitler told his generals on the eve of the extermination of the Jews. The horrendous events of World War II overshadowed the Armenian genocide, and it is only recently, through the peaceful efforts of the Armenian groups, that the rest of the world has once again begun to recognize the collective agony of the Armenian people.

CONGRESSMAN THOMAS BLILEY, R-Va. (CR-House, 4/24/84, p. H2979): Mr. Speaker, I know that the actions of the Ottoman Government did not lead directly to the forced starvation of the Ukraine by Josef Stalin, the gas chambers of Auschwitz, the gruesome slaughter of the Cambodians. Idi Amin's death campaign in Uganda, and the more recent actions in Matabeleland in Zimbabwe, but I know that human nature, even a warped and infamous human nature, needs the comfort of believing that it can get away with something before it proceeds. As an example I would cite Adolf Hitler's statement concerning the final solution for the Jews of Europe when he said, "Who now remembers the Armenians?" If more proof is needed then we can all look up Idi Amin's frequent statements of his adoration for Adolf Hitler as a man who knew how to handle a problem.

CONGRESSMAN EDWARD BOLAND, D-Mass. (CR-House, 4/24/84, p. H2975): The silence with which the community of nations greeted the decimation of the Armenian people may have emboldened those who would later perpetrate similar acts. It certainly had an effect on Adolf Hitler who while planning the extermination of millions of Jews was asked how the world would respond a program of mass murder. In reply Hitler said, "Who remembers the Armenians?"

CONGRESSWOMAN BARBARA BOXER, D-Calif. (CR-House, 4/24/84, p. H2977): The repeated denials of these well documented crimes of the Ottoman Turkish regime call to mind the Nazi maxim that a big lie if often repeated becomes truth. Hitler himself cited the Armenians massacres as evidence that humanity cares nothing for the murder of a people.

CONGRESSMAN JIM COURTER, R-N.J (CR-House, 4/24/84, p. H2977): But here can be no could that this ignorance of history's darker events aids those who perpetrate them, and those who would do son in the future. It is known that Hitler cited that fact that the Armenian genocide was little known, little discussed and little remembered in his time. We can only imagine the conclusions he drew from this fact.

CONGRESSMAN MERVYN DYMALLY, D-Calif. (CR-House, 4/12/84, p. H2924): Today, historians argue about the number of Armenians actually killed. Others claim that no genocide took place at all. This is a devastating conclusion to the survivors, whether they be Americans, Lebanese, Egyptians, French or citizens of any other country..... If we deny the Armenian Genocide -a historical event that has been well documented- we echo the words of Adolph [sic] Hitler who said, "Who still talks nowadays, of the extermination of Armenians?"

CONGRESSMAN EDWARD FEIGHAN, D-Ohio (CR-House, 4/24/84, p. H2971): But only twenty years after the fact, the century's first genocide was the "forgotten genocide." As Hitler paused on the edge of his own reign of terror, he asked "Who remembers the Armenians?" And no one had. A world blind to the lessons of history saw them repeated on a wider scale.

CONGRESSWOMAN GERALDINE FERRARO, D-N.Y.(Quoted in the Armenian Reporter, July 26, 1984, p.2.) I have dwelled on the Armenian genocide not because it is unique as a flagrant abuse of human rights, but precisely because it is not unique. The world knew about the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews ñand failed to act. Those failures spread the shame of these unspeakable crimes against humanity far beyond those directly responsible for them.

The events in Turkey in 1915 and in Germany in World War II, and in Cambodia in the 1970's, are of course not directly related. The madness and brutality of the perpetrators of each genocide had their own tragic basis.

But there is a strong tie in the world's silence in the face of each of these horrors. We can only be haunted by the words of Adolph Hitler, who said, in embarking on his "crazed attack" on the Jews. "Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?"

Now, today, years too late for the millions killed in the Nazi gas chambers and Khmer Rouge execution centers, we stand to say that we speak of the annihilation of the Armenians. And of the Jews, and of the Cambodians. We stand to remind the world of these crimes against humanity, that we may prevent future crimes.

CONGRESSMAN HAMILTON FISH, R-N.Y. (CR-House, 4/24/84, p. H2982): In speaking of the consequences of the Jewish Holocaust, Adolf Hitler once remarked: "Who remembers the Armenians?" Indeed it is our responsibility to do just that; remember that which we would rather choose to forget.

CONGRESSMAN WILLIAM FORD, D-Mich (CR_House, 4/24/84, p. H2981): Even Adolf Hitler used past events to shape his own policies. In 1939 as he was beginning his invasion of Poland, Hitler ordered the mass extermination of its inhabitants, commenting, "Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?" Humanity's failure to remember the genocide of an entire people scarcely 25 years earlier gave Hitler the go ahead to exterminate millions of innocent people.

CONGRESSMAN SAM GEJDENSON, D-Conn. (CR-House, 4/25/84, p. E1766): In the now infamous quote, Adolf Hitler, before beginning his Holocaust against the Jews, referred to international indifference in the face of the Armenian genocide, "Who," he asked, "remembers the Armenians?"

CONGRESSMAN WILLIAM GREEN, R-N.Y. (CR-House, 4/2/84, p. H2972): When Hitler was about to begin the Holocaust and a member of his staff asked him what the world would think, Hitler is reported to have replied, "Who remembers the Armenians?"

CONGRESSMAN RICHARD LEHMAN, D-Calif. (CR-House, 4/12/84, p.H2793): Questioned by an aide about his policy of Jewish genocide, Hitler said: "Who after all now remembers the annihilation of the Armenians?"

CONGRESSMAN BRUCE MORRISON, Conn. (CR-House, 4/24/84, p. H2979): Adolf Hitler took advantage of the world's amnesia, looking at the Armenian genocide as a precedent for his own Holocaust perpetrated against Europe's Jews. Hitler said, in a chilling remark made in 1939. "Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?"

CONGRESSMAN NICHOLAS MAVROULES, D-Mass. (CR-House, 4/24/84, p. H2979): Sadly, however, the Armenian genocide would be surpassed by the Nazi holocaust in the 1930's and 1940's. Adolf Hitler, in an attempt to explain away his maniacal slaughter, would ask with a laugh: "Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?"

CONGRESSMAN CHARLES SCHUMER, D-N.Y. (CR-House, 4/24/84, p. H2976): It is of paramount importance that we do not let this tragedy be forgotten with the passage of time. This act of inhumanity, based on religious and nationalistic grounds, was as terrible as any manmade catastrophe to that time yet only two decades later Hitler could ask, "Who remembers the Armenians?" Perhaps if the world had paid more attention to the plight of the Armenian massacre later tragedies could have been averted.

CONGRESSMAN JAMES SHANNON, D-Mass. (CR-House, 4/24/84, p. H2973): This act of wholesale annihilation set the stage for Hitler's attempted extermination of the Jewish people. He justified his plan to doubting coconspirators with the reasoning that no one remembered the Armenian genocide which had taken pace only 15 years earlier.

CONGRESSMAN HENRY WAXMAN, D-Caliph. (CR-House, 4/24/84, p. H2981): This day server to remind us that this first genocide of our century served as a precedent for the holocaust of World War II when more than 6 million people were destroyed by a government leader who responded: "Whoever cared about the Armenians?" When it was suggested that world opinion would not allow the Nazis to get away with their attempt to eliminate the Jewish people.
APPENDIX II: Excerpts from the Lochner Version of the August 22, 1939, Obersalzberg Speech Dealing with the Planned Invasion of Poland

Lochner, 1942, p.2: Our strength consists of our speed and in our brutality. Genghis Khan led millions of women and children to slaughter ñ with premeditation and a happy heart. History sees in him solely the founder of a state. It's matter of indifference to me what a weak western European civilization will say about me.

I have issued the command ñI'll have anybody who utter one word of criticism executed by a firing squad- that our war aim does not consist in reaching certain lines, but in the physical destruction of the enemy.

Accordingly, I have placed my death head formations in readiness ñ for the present only in the East ñ with orders to them do send to death mercilessly and without compassion, men, women and children of Polish derivation and language. Only thus shall we gain the living space [lebensraum] which we need. Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?

NCA, Volume VII, p. 753: Our strength is in our quickness and our brutality. Ghenghis Khan had millions of women and children killed by his own will and with a gay heart. History sees only in him a great state builder. What weak Western European civilization thinks about me does not matter.

I have given the order, and will have everyone shot who utters one word of criticism that the aim of the war is not to attain certain lines, but consist in the physical destruction of the opponent. Thus for the time being I have sent to the East only my "Death's Head units" with the order to kill without pity or mercy all men, women, and children of the Polish race or language. Only in such a way will we win the vital space that we need. Who still talks nowadays of the extermination of the Armenians?

The Times, November 24, 1945, p. 4: Our strength is in our quickness and our brutality. Ghengis Khan had millions of women killed by his own will and with a gay heart. History sees in him only a great State-builder. What the weak European civilization thinks about me does not matter.

I have given the order, and will have everyone shot who utters one word of criticism...

Thus for the time being I have sent to the East only my Death's Head units, with the order to kill without pity or mercy all men, women, and children of the Polish race or language. Who still talks nowadays of the extermination of the Armenians?
APPENDIX III: Excerpts from the Nuremberg Versions of the August 22, 1939, Obersalzberg Speech Dealing with the Planned Invasion of Poland

Us-30 [1014-PS]

TMWC, Vol. II, pp. 290-291
NCA, Vol. III, pp. 665-666
DGFP, Vol. VII, pp. 205-206

Destruction of Poland in the foreground. The aim is elimination of living forces, not the arrival at a certain line: Even if war should break out in the West, the destruction of Poland shall be the primary objective. Quick decision because of the season.

I shall give a propagandistic cause for starting the war ñ never mind whether it bi plausible or not. The victor shall not be asked, later on, whether we told the truth or not. In starting and making a war, not be Right is what matters but Victory.

Have no pity. Brutal attitude. 80 million people shall get what is their right. Their existence has to be secured. The strongest has the right. Greatest severity.

Quick decision necessary. Un shakable faith in German soldier. A crisis may happen only if the nerves of the leaders give way.

First aim: advance to the Vistula and Narew. Our technical superiority will break the nerve of the Poles. Every newly created Polish force shall again be broken at once. Constant war of attrition.

New German frontier according to healthily principles. Possibly a protectorate as a buffer. Military operations shall not be influenced by these reflections. Complete destruction of Poland is a military aim. To be fast is the main thing. Pursuit until complete elimination.

Boehm, August 22, 1939 TMWC, Vol. XLI, p.25: The goal is the elimination and destruction of Poland's military power even if war should begin in the west. A swift, successful outcome in the east offers the best prospects for restricting the conflict.

A suitable propaganda cause will be advanced for the conflict. The credibility of this is unimportant. Right lies with the victor.

We must shut and harden our hearts. To whomever ponders the world order it is clear that what is important are the war ñlike accomplishments of the best....

We can and must believe in the value of the German soldier. In times of crisis he has generally retained his nerve, while the leadership has lost theirs....

Once again: the first priority is the swiftness of the operations. To adapt to each new situation to shatter the hostile forces, wherever they appear and to the last one.

This is the military goal which is the prerequisite for the narrower political foal of later drawing up new frontiers.

Halder, August 22, 1939, DGFP, Vol. VII, p. 559: Aim: Annihilation of Poland - elimination of its vital forces. It is not a matter of gaining a specific line or new frontier, but rather the annihilation of an enemy, which constantly must be attempted by new always.

Solution: Means immaterial. The victor is never called on to vindicate his actions. We are not concerned with having justice on our side, but solely with having justice on our side, but solely with victory.

Execution: Harsh and remorseless. Be steeled against all signs of compassion!

Speed: Faith in the German soldier, even if reverses occur.

Of paramount importance are the wedges [which must be driven] from the southeast to the Vistula, and from the north to the Narev and the Vistula.

Promptness in meeting new situations; new means must be devised to deal with them quickly.

New Frontiers: New Reich territory. Outlying protectorate territory. Military operations must not be affected by regard for the future frontiers.
Notes

1.The entire text of Hovannisian's 1983 speech was read into the Congressional Record-Senate, pp. S4713-S4715, by Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) on April 24, 1984, as part of his remarks entitled. "69th anniversary of Armenian Martyrs' Day." Hovannisian's use of the alleged Hitler quote appears on p. S4714. On p. S4704 Levin notes that the Hovannisian speech had similar fact sheets and articles which he entered into the Record were provided him by the Armenian Assembly.
2.The Time, Saturday, November 24, 1945, p. 4. While the alleged Hitler quote on the Armenians normally appears bereft of source (as in the example cited above by Hovannisian), when "documented" the Times article is invariably given. The unidentified author of the Times article claims that his story was based on "An address by Hitler to his commanders-in-chief on August 22, 1939 ña few days before the invasion of Poland- was read at yesterday's hearing of the Nuremberg trial [November 23, 1945]."
3. Italics added.
4.Louis P. Lochner, What About Germany? (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1942), pp. 1-4 (hereafter cited as Lochner, 1942).
5. Lochner, 1942, p. 1
6. Lochner, 1942, p. 2 (italics added).
7. Lochner, 1942, p. 2.
8.Congressional Record ñHouse, p. H2981 (April 24, 1984).
9.See Appendix I for the use of the alleged Hitler quote in the remarks of the sixteen U.S. lawmakers.
10. The minutes of the August 22, 1939, Obersalzberg meeting kept by admiral Boehm were submitted as evidence at Nuremberg in defense of Admiral Raeder.
11. The documents confiscated from the OKW were in number. They were accepted by the Nuremberg prosecutors as the official minutes of the August 22, 1939, Obersalzberg meeting. As such they are preserved as part of the trial transcripts: TMWC, Volume II (New York: AMS Press, 1971), pp. 285-293. Given the trial numbers of US-29 (798-PS) and US-30 (1014-PS)., respectively, these documents were also published in Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression (hereafter cited as NCA). There, US-29 (798-PS) appears in Volume III, pp. 581-596, and US-30 (1014-PS) in the same volume on pp. 665-666. Likewise, they appear in Document on German Foreign Policy. 1918-1945, Series D (1937-1945), Volume VII (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1956) (hereafter cited as DGFP), pp. 200-206. In subsequent citations of these documents I shall cite the appropriate page numbers from each of the three publications listed above.
12. General Franz Halders notes from the August 22, 1939, Obersalzberg meeting, while not submitted as evidence at Nuremberg, were subsequently published in DGFP, pp. 557-559 (hereafter cited as Halder, August 22, 1939).
13. William Shirer, The Rise and fall of the Third Reich (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1960), p. 529-532. See in particular his detailed description of the documents in question on p. 529 (hereafter cited as Zhirer, 1960)
14. Shirer, 1960. fn. P. 529.
15. This passage is taken from the transcript of the Nuremberg tribunal: TMWC, Volume II (New York: AMS Press, 1971), pp; 285-286 (italics added). The document discussed (but not submitted as evidence) by Prosecutor Alderman as Exhibit USA-28 was subsequently published in NCA, Volume VII, pp. 752-754, where it was given the number L-3 (Note Shirer, 1960 fn. 529, mistakenly lists its number in this publication as: C-3).
16. TMWC, Volume II, p. 291.
17. TMWC, Volume II, p. 291 (italics added).
18. TMWC, Volume II, p. 292.
19. Louis P. Lochner, Always the Unexpected (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1956), p. 287 (hereafter cited as Lochner. 1956).
20. Lieutenant-Colonel W. Byford-Jones, Berlin Twilight (London: Hutchinson & Co. Ltd. 1946), pp. 174, a76-77.
21. Lochner, 1956, pp. 287-288 (italics added).
22. Lochner, 1942, p. 405. What is harder to account for is the fact that neither the Nuremberg prosecutors nor William Shirer was aware of the fact that Lochner had originally published his document in 1942. In Lochner, 1956, p. 314, the author tells us that his What About Germany? appeared in print on October 15, 1942, and "it was on the best-seller lists for a considerable time." Despite this fact, the present study is the first to establish that US-28 (L-3), the document discussed but not introduced as evidence in the course of the Nuremberg trials, was supplied to the prosecutors at Nuremberg by Lochner, and had in fact been published by him in 1942.
23. Lochner, 1956, pp. 287-288.
24. Shirer, 1960. For Beck's role as an organizer of the anti-Hitler conspiracy, see pp. 309, 366-375, 422, 488.
25. Shirer, 1960, fn. P. 529.
26. See Lochner, 1942, pp. 1-4, and NCA, Volume VII, pp. 752-754.
27. For a description of Halder's role in the anti-Hitler conspiracy, see Shirer, 1960, pp. 374-375, 378-379, fn. 380, 381-382, 404-408, 411-413, 422, 426, 517, 530, 558-559.
28. For an analysis of the manner in which Armenian spokesmen use the activities of terrorists to further their cause, see Heath W. Lowry, "Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Armenian Terrorism: ëThreads of Continuity,' "in International Terrorism and the Drug Connection (Ankara: Ankara University Press, 1984), pp. 71-83.
29. It was Pashayan who "took the special order" on April 24, 1984, under which the various members of the House of Representatives made their speeches on Armenian Martyrs' Day See Congressional Record- House, p. H2967 (April 24. 1984)
30. Quoted in the April 24, 1984, remarks of Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D-Ohio), which were published in the Congressional Record-Senate, p. S4719 (April 24, 1984).
31. Quoted in the April 24, 1984, remarks of Congressional Glenn Anderson (D-Calif), which were published in the Congressional Record-House, p. H2970 (April 24, 1984).
32. Congressional Record-House, p.H9227 (September 10, 1984).

33. The most authoritative scholarly work dealing with the Ottoman population of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries is Justin McCarthy's Muslim and Minorities: The Population of Ottoman Anatolia and the End of the Empire (New York and London: New York University Press. 1983). This demographic study shows (pp. 47-88) that Armenian deaths during the period in question did not exceed 600,000 and resulted from the same wartime conditions of starvation, epidemic disease, and inter communal warfare which accounted for the loss of 2.5 million Muslim lies in the same period. The author provides no breakdown of the percentage of deaths experienced by either group resulting from the various causes he discusses.

34. Congressional Record-House, p. H 9228 (September 10, 1984).
35. Congressional Record-House, p. H 9228 (September 10, 1984).

Read Full Post !

1228) Prof. Heath Lowry on the Burning of Izmir : Turkish History: On Whose Sources Will It Be Based? A Case Study On The Burning Of Izmir

Turkish History: On Whose Sources Will It Be Based? A Case Study On The Burning Of Izmir

---

Related Post: Armenians, Not Turks Set Smyrna Ablaze- Relief Worker Declares: San Antonio Express, 1923-01-22

---

Heath W. Lowry
Osmanli Arastirmalari, 9 (1988): 13

" No Picture then, and no history, can present us with the whole truth : but those are the best pictures and the best historians which exhibit such parts of the truth as most nearly produce the effect of the whole. He who is deficient in the art of selection may, by showing nothing but the truth, produce all the effect of the greatest falsehood. " Thomas Macaulay : ‘History’ . . .

Read Full Post !

666) Connecting The Dots On The “alleged" Armenian Genocide

What was presented here is in no way a comprehensive list, but perhaps only an introductory tool. You will find enough information here, however, to create your starting point from where you can launch your own research to deepen your knowledge on the Turkish-Armenian conflict.

This effort on my part was necessary because the information presented on this issue in the American media and academia are, unfortunately, almost without exception, tainted by pro-Armenian and anti-Turkish bias. This kind of lopsided, biased, and unfair coverage of a controversial issue is the reason why the term ethocide was coined. No other issue, present or past, has been covered with this much bias, bigotry, and blatant discrimination.

So much so, that although Turkish suffering, by any measure, was much wider, deeper, and more intense than the Armenian suffering, it is simply not possible to find a single word on the Turkish suffering, while AFATH penned books fill most library shelves.

So much so, that the amply documented Armenian treason is news to some academicians -- such as those AFATH-owned-but-independently-operated genocide scholars. Most AFATH scholars ignore or downplay the rock solid facts that the Ottoman-Armenians, during WWI, have

- schemed and agitated against their government;
- attacked, tortured, and killed their Muslim neighbors and fellow Ottoman-citizens;
- terrorized Eastern Anatolia;
- staged armed rebellions;
- willingly engaged in fifth column activities behind Ottoman lines;
- joined the invading enemy armies; committed acts of treason;
- committed unspeakable hate crimes against the Ottoman-Muslims in Eastern Anatolia while wearing the Russian uniforms;
- committed unspeakable hate crimes against the Ottoman-Muslims in Southern Anatolia while wearing the French uniforms;
- not only slaughtered Ottoman-Muslim, but also Ottoman-Jews;
- and much more.

- Turks were forced to exercise their right to defend their homeland in May 1915 (not April 24 as the AFATH crowds erroneously claim) by removing most of the treasonous Ottoman-Armenians (not all of them) out of the theater of war and to temporarily resettle them in other parts of the Ottoman Empire where the Ottoman-Armenians could pose little or no risk to the Ottoman war effort. This is a classic military measure during a time of war, exercised by even the U.S. and France during WWII and almost ay country throughout known history. It is perhaps because of those measures that I am able to write these lines and most of my readers are able to read them today. It is perhaps because of those measures that there is a Republic of Turkey today.

Opposing those wartime military measures 90 years later boils down to showing bigoted and unjustified hostility to Turkey and Turks today. One simply can not pretend to be a friend of Turkey and Turks while subscribing to the AFATH views on the AAG. Let’s all be clear on that common denomination.

The AFATH spoke up, embellished, and distorted history for 90 years; Turks have chosen the higher road of forgive and forget. But the dignified silence of the Turks during a time of nation-building, guided by Ataturk’s immortal words “Peace at home, peace in the world”, was deliberately misinterpreted by the AFATH crowds as “admission of guilt”. It is our turn to speak now. We must speak, for the next 90 years if that’s what it takes, to make our case, present our worse suffering and bigger losses, and remind the world of the despicable Ottoman-Armenian treason and violent rebellions, to level the field. Until that day, there can be no real peace between Turkey and Armenia.

The Armenians sowed hatred for 90 years and they are now harvesting hostility. Turks, on the other hand, invested heavily into “Peace at home and peace in the world” for 90 years, only to find out that anti-Turkish bias and bigotry, shamelessly cultivated in the West, can not be easily overcome by strict adherence to a tradition of peace. Unfortunately, the Armenian terrorism and aggression, it seems, paid handsome dividends. I would give anything to be convinced otherwise.

Let me be crystal clear: While El Kaida terrorism is rightfully punished, Armenian terrorism is rewarded. This kind of “my-terrorist-is-better-than-your-terrorist” approach is the wrong message to send to rogue nations like Armenia, which consequently, sees no reason to stop their brutal occupation of parts of neighboring Azerbaijan. The Armenians got away with murder, again, while treating the world to a bogus genocide lullaby. It is up to us now to wake the world up from this meaningless slumber.

The information presented in this column levels the playing field to a degree. I will continue to enrich this “databank” with new series documenting Armenian myths, distortions, and lies, as well as exposing some of those Turkish turncoats -- mostly former leftist revolutionaries and even convicted terrorists of the 1970s, as well as their supporters and sympathizers -- who treat the AAG as a new way to avenge their lost battles against the Republic of Turkey. By the time I am finished, this will be one of the more comprehensive databanks on the Turkish-Armenian civil war.

It is still up to the reader to make the best use of this databank. How does one go about using this information to refute the omni-present AAG? To help my readers answer this question, I am presenting below a TV interview conducted by Channel One TV in 2001 which is important from several aspects:

- It lists the five most basic questions TV reporters love to ask on camera.
- It gives a synopsis of the Turkish views while answering those questions
- It lists some scholarly sources as references for more research-minded people
- It brings “the other side of the story” out into the open in an easy-to-follow, chat-format
- It shows the typical bias in the media, as only 10 seconds of this 75 minute interview was broadcast, while close to ten minutes were allocated to same, old, well-known AFATH views.

Because of all these reasons, this interview seems to be an ideal introduction, a necessary first step, for anyone who is new to the subject and who wishes to get a balanced view of the Turkish-Armenian conflict. It ties together all of the past articles nicely in one compact package.

Use it!
Peace,
Ergun Kirlikovali

**********************************
Legend:
AAG = The alleged Armenian genocide
AFATH = Armenian Falsifiers and Turk Haters
Ethocide = Extermination of ethics via pre-meditated and malicious mass deception for political, economic, social, and/or moral benefits
WWI = The World War One
WWII = The World War Two
**********************************

THE “ALLEGED" ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
Channel One Interview Conducted on April 11, 2001
Anchorman: Derrick SHORE ; Participant : Ergun KIRLIKOVALI
Duration: 1hour 15 min ; Aired only 10 seconds

QUESTION 1:
1.5 MILLION ARMENIANS WERE KILLED IN THE GENOCIDE THAT TOOK PLACE BETWEEN 1915 AND 1923. WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT?

Answer 1: I object to the use of the term genocide. It was a civil war within a world war, where all sides party to the conflict suffered terribly. For every Armenian who died or was killed, 4 Muslims, mostly Turks, died or were killed. Same area, same time, same wartime conditions.

Armenian lobby today would like you to ignore the Turkish suffering, and solely focus on Armenian suffering. I ask you, aren’t Turks human, too? Don’t their dead count? Wouldn’t ignoring Turkish dead and grieving only for the Armenian dead be selective morality, even racism?

I find such discrimination, based on racial, ethnic, or religious reasons to be unfair, unethical, and un-American. Look what a prominent scholar, a history professor at UCLA, Stanford J. Shaw, says in his book History Of The Ottoman Empire And modern Turkey , Cambridge University Press (1977), Volume II, page 315, and I quote:

“…Armenians again flooded the czarist armies, and the czar returned to St. Petersburg confident that the day finally had come for him to reach Istanbul.

Hostilities were opened by Russians, who pushed across the border on November 1, 1914, though the Ottomans stopped them and pushed them back a few days later….A subsequent Russian counter offensive in January caused the Ottoman army to scatter…and the way was prepared for a new Russian push into eastern Anatolia , to be accompanied by an open Armenian revolt against the sultan.

…Armenian leaders in Russia now declared their open support of the enemy and there seemed no other alternative. It would be impossible to determine which of the Armenians would remain loyal and which would follow the appeals of their leaders. As soon as the spring came, then, in mid-May 1915 orders were issued to evacuate the entire Armenian population from the provinces of Van, Bitlis, and Erzurum, to get them away from all areas where they might undermine the Ottoman campaigns against Russia or against the British in Egypt, with arrangements made to settle them in towns and camps in the Mosul area of Northern Iraq. In addition, Armenians residing in the countryside (but not in the cities) of the Cilician districts as well as those of north Syria were to be sent to central Syria for the same reason. Specific instructions were issued for the army to protect the Armenians against nomadic attacks and to provide them with sufficient food and other supplies to meet their needs during the march and after they were settled. Warnings were sent to the Ottoman military commanders to make certain that neither the Kurds nor any other Muslims used the situation to gain vengeance for the long years of Armenian terrorism. The Armenians were to be protected and cared for until they returned to their homes after the war…”

And if you think this prominent history professor is alone in his research findings and/or conclusions, think again. Because 69 other colleagues of Professor Shaw’s , i.e. historians, scholars, and other experts on this issue, representing top American universities and colleges in this field, have signed a statement addressed to congress and published it in New York Times and Washington Post on May 19, 1985, supporting the findings I quote above. I will not list all of the names who signed this declaration, but I will read the declaration, if you don’t mind, since these historians are really the ones who should be doing this interview, not me:

“…To the members of the u.s. house of representatives : The undersigned American academicians who specialize in Turkish, Ottoman and Middle Eastern Studies are concerned that the current language embodied in House Joint Resolution 192 is misleading and/or inaccurate in several respects. .. Specifically, while fully supporting the concept of a "National Day of Remembrance of Man's Inhumanity to Man," we respectfully take exception to that portion of the text which singles out for special recognition: ". . . the one and one half million people of Armenian ancestry who were victims of genocide perpetrated in Turkey between 1915 and 1923 . . .."

Our reservations focus on the use of the words ‘Turkey' and ‘genocide’ and may be summarized as follows:

From the fourteenth century until 1922, the area currently known as Turkey, or more correctly, the Republic of Turkey, was part of the territory encompassing the multinational, multi-religious state known as the Ottoman Empire. It is wrong to equate the Ottoman Empire with the Republic of Turkey in the same way that it is wrong to equate the Hapsburg Empire with the Republic of Austria. The Ottoman Empire, which was brought to an end in 1922, by the successful conclusion of the Turkish Revolution which established the present day Republic of Turkey in 1923, incorporated lands and people which today account for more than twenty-five distinct countries in Southeastern Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East, only one of which is the Republic of Turkey. The Republic of Turkey bears no responsibility for any events which occurred in Ottoman times, yet by naming 'Turkey' in the Resolution, its authors have implicitly labeled it as guilty of ‘genocide’ it charges transpired between 1915 and 1923;

As for the charge of ‘genocide,’ no signatory of this statement wishes to minimize the scope of Armenian suffering. We are likewise cognizant that it cannot be viewed as separate from the suffering experienced by the Muslim inhabitants of the region. The weight of evidence so far uncovered points in the direct of serious inter communal warfare (perpetrated by Muslim and Christian irregular forces), complicated by disease, famine, suffering and massacres in Anatolia and adjoining areas during the First World War. Indeed, throughout the years in question, the region was the scene of more or less continuous warfare, not unlike the tragedy which has gone on in Lebanon for the past decade. The resulting death toll among both Muslim and Christian communities of the region was immense. But much more remains to be discovered before historians will be able to sort out precisely responsibility between warring and innocent, and to identify the causes for the events which resulted in the death or removal of large numbers of the eastern Anatolian population, Christian and Muslim alike. Statesmen and politicians make history, and scholars write it. For this process to work scholars must be given access to the written records of the statesmen and politicians of the past. To date, the relevant archives in the Soviet Union, Syria, Bulgaria and Turkey all remain, for the most part, closed to dispassionate historians. Until they become available, the history of the Ottoman Empire in the period encompassed by H.J. Res. 192 (1915-1923) cannot be adequately known. We believe that the proper position for the United States Congress to take on this and related issues is to encourage full and open access to all historical archives and not to make charges on historical events before they are fully understood. Such charges as those contained H.J. Res. 192 would inevitably reflect unjustly upon the people of Turkey and perhaps set back irreparably progress historians are just now beginning to achieve in understanding these tragic events.

As the above comments illustrate, the history of the Ottoman-Armenians is much debated among scholars, many of whom do not agree with the historical assumptions embodied in the wording of H.J. Res. 192. By passing the resolution Congress will be attempting to determine by legislation which side of the historical question is correct. Such a resolution, based on historically questionable assumptions, can only damage the cause of honest historical inquiry, and damage the credibility of the American legislative process…”

As you can see, prominent historians, scholars, and researchers reject your characterization of “genocide” when referring to the Turkish-Armenian conflict during WWI.

I also object to the numbers. Since exact numbers of casualties is simply impossible to get, given the manual nature of documentation, copying, or recording and the wartime conditions, best estimates based on review and cross comparison of documents, are all we can rely on.

The Armenian casualties range from 300,000 (Gurun) to 600,000 (McCarthy), while Muslim losses, mostly Turkish, are about 3 million. No matter whose numbers and estimates one uses, though, this horribly tragic ratio of 4 Turkish losses to every Armenian loss seems to be consistent and that’s where our frustration and anger focus: how come no one mentions Turkish dead? Another source of objection to the alleged 1.5 million Armenian loss, is the fact that the entire Armenian population was about 1.3 million at the time (estimates ranging from 1 million to 1.5 million; Armenian estimates, most unreliable, always double triple these numbers).

How can anyone kill more than there is? Also, if you look at Armenian loss numbers, they seem to increase by years: up to 600,000 in 1920s, a million in 1960s and 1.5million in 1980s. Even Encyclopedia of Britannica gives the Armenian dead as 600,000 in 1918 but 1.5 million in 1968. Do Armenian dead multiply? Or are they manipulating numbers to make history fit their claims of genocide?

Even one dead is too many, I agree. But if one wishes to grieve one side’s losses and completely ignore the other side’s losses, worse yet, if one piggy-backs on this racist behavior an unfair claim of genocide leveled against one of the warring factions, then the whole thing is out of order… Is it not fair, is it not the American way, to consider both sides of a claim before rushing to judgment?

Where is due process here? Where is the Turkish side of the story?

Look how Boghos Nubar, in a letter to the Times of London, published on January 30, 1919, begs the allies at Paris conference at the end of World War I as follows, urging the allies to reward the Armenians for their service:

“…The Armenians have been, since the beginning of the war, de facto belligerents - since they fought alongside the Allies on all fronts - in Palestine and Syria, where the Armenian volunteers, recruited by the Armenian National Delegation at the request of the French government, made up more than half of the French contingent. In the Caucasus, where, without mentioning the 150,000 Armenians in the Imperial Russian Army, more than 40,000 of their volunteers offered resistance to the Turkish Armies."

What genocide are you talking about? This is war… Plain, simple…and ugly… As all wars are…

****************************

QUESTION 2:
WE ARE COMING HERE FROM THE USC WHERE WE SAW MANY DOCUMENTS, PHOTOS, ETC. ON THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE. WHAT ABOUT THEM? DO YOU HAVE SIMILAR DOCUMENTS, TOO? IF YOU DO, WHERE ARE THEY?

Answer 2 : Yes, we do have documents, photos, maps, books, oral history tapes, and whatever else is used in documenting history and you can find them in Turkey, in government archives, university libraries, museums, and other such depositories.

If the Turkish side didn’t present them to the world public opinion with great fanfare and drama, like the Armenians did over the last 80+ years, that is because Turks made a conscious decisions not to dwell on the negatives of the past wars during a time of nation building. Turks chose to forgive and forget.

I have a 9 year old son who has never yet heard from me the word Armenian. I don’t want my son to be a fanatic and a radical, like some Armenian terrorist. Los Angeles Times newspaper is awash with news of Armenian kids, as young as 7, 8, 9 years old, reciting hateful poems for candy money from their fathers, where they say awful things like

“I will grow up and butcher all the Turks…” You don’t have to take my word for this, just look at the press reports… This is why we were subjected to a violent campaign of international terrorism for 30 years since 1970s, mainly by brain-washed young Armenian terrorists, under the guidance and enthusiastic support of older Armenians.

More than 70 Turkish diplomats, their families, and innocent bystanders were killed, hundreds were wounded by Armenian terrorists. I have a complete list of Armenian terrorist acts here, see, page after page… Here, you will see assassinations, bombings, bomb threats, intimidations, harassment, and many other forms of terrorism.

Did you know, for example, 3 Turkish diplomats were murdered in cold blood by Armenian fanatics just here in California in the last 30 years? You ask for document, here is a document… You can find more in the LAPD and FBI records, I am sure.

The only difference between the documents the Turkish government and academic sources have in Turkey and what the Armenians show you as documents is that the Turkish documents are genuine, but the Armenian documents are mostly distorted, exaggerated, or outright fake.

Armenians will show you Talat Pasha telegrams, proven to be fake, and I will show you in a minute, the reports exposing this fakery.

An infamous quote, purported to be made by Hitler… fake! It was shown by renown historian Heath Lowry to be embellished version of a Hitler speech. The two sources that were actually used as evidence at the Nuremberg trials do not contain anything about the Armenians. The “doctored” version, which was rejected by the American prosecutor, did have that quotation. I will give you references on this also, in a minute.

Armenians must have also shown you letters and reports by the American ambassador Morgenthau, but not the letters by a succeeding American, ambassador Bristol, who refuted the writings of Morgenthau.

Did you know, for example, that Morgenthau’s reports were forwarded to Washington DC from Istanbul, but actually were generated mostly by Armenian Revolutionary Federation and/or anti-Muslim missionaries, and further embellished by Armenian assistants of the ambassador?

Did you know, that Morgetnhau’s writings were little more than wartime propaganda, designed to drum up support for American entry into the WWI?

Did you know that Morgenthau’s exaggerated reports of absolute horror and mass killings were not admitted into evidence by the British court in Malta after the war?

I ask you, if they were so correct. so genuine, so reliable, so irrefutable, then how come they were simply rejected by the British prosecutors? That is because even an ally knows where hype, hatred, and propaganda stops, and where truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth enters…

Werfel’s heart wrenching story, his book called 40 Days At Musa Dagh about courageous Armenian uprising and tragic end,… fake! Werfel heard these stories from a friend: an Armenian bishop in Vienna and never questioned the Bishop’s account. Years later, when he found out “the Truth” – that only 500 Armenians were captured after 40 days of siege, and the 50,000 Armenians escaped via another route at the back of the mountain, to Mediterranean and then transported by British and French warships to Alexandria, Egypt, under British rule then… So all the “dead Armenians” miraculously “surfaced in Egypt!

Surprised? Not me… If you knew the Armenian history of subterfuge, fakery, fabrication, misrepresentation, and outright lies, like we Turkish-Americans and Turks do, you would not be surprised at all.

I can list dozens, even hundreds of fake Armenian documents. Do you now understand why Armenian allegations of genocide was never accepted as the truth by the world international body?

…………….

Summary of Answer to Question 2: Yes we do have document and genuine ones at that. Our documents are not like the Armenian fakeries. The reason we have not displayed them in the past 80+ years is because we didn’t want to raise new generations with feelings of hatred and vengeance at a time of nation rebuilding. Turks chose the high road of “forgive and forget”. But that doesn’t mean we can not speak up when our rights are trampled on or when we are subjected to injustice by anti-Turkish lobbies.

References:

Orel, Sinasi & Yuca, Sureyya, The Talat Pasha Telegrams - Historical Fact or Armenian Fiction, K. Rustem & Brother, Lefkosa (Nicosia), Northern Cyprus (1986). Synopsis: To date, there is no evidence that the Ottoman State had a policy of extermination of the Armenians. Ottoman statesmen who were imprisoned in Malta after WWI for alleged crimes against Armenians were all released due to lack of evidence. Faked telegrams attributed to the Young Turk government have since been thoroughly exposed as forgeries . Even the British did not use these in their persecution of Ottoman statesmen.

Heath W. Lowry, The U.S. Congress and Adolf Hitler on the Armenians, Political Communiation and Persuasion, Volume 3/2 (1985); pages 111-139; (See Archives below)

Stanford J. Shaw, Turkey and the Holocaust: Turkey’s Role in Rescuing Turkish and European Jewry From Nazi Persecution, New York University Press, New York (1993): Synopsis by an unknown source: “… The Jews have gone through a genocide another example of which is very difficult to find. Moreover, apart from the extraordinarily good relations between the Jews and the Turks since the Middle Ages, Turkey’s role in helping European Jews during the Holocaust has been largely ignored. As Professor Shaw notes, the world does not realize the extent to which Turkey, and the Ottoman Empire which preceded it, over the centuries served as major places of refuge for people suffering from persecution, Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Turkey was a haven, not only for those who escaped the Inquisition, but also hundreds of well-known intellectuals during 1930s and thousands of other less well known persons were rescued…”

George Abel Schreiner, An American war correspondent , The Craft Sinister (1920)

Heath W. Lowry, Professor of History, Princeton University, The Story Behind Ambassador Morgenthau's Story, The Isis Press, Istanbul (1990). Synopsis: The anti-Turkish claims advanced in Ambassador Morgenthau's book have been shown to be exaggerations of wartime propaganda by both the American WWI war correspondent George Abel Schreiner and by Professor Heath W. Lowry of Princeton University. Ambassador Morgenthau's book was also a key source for three influential wartime anti-Turkish books: the publications by Lord Bryce, the German Pastor Dr. Johannes Lepsius and young Arnold J. Toynbee. The so-called Blue Book was an important British wartime propaganda publication. (See archives below)

Albert Amateau, Notarized Statement, “Franz Werfel’s Confessions & Armenian Betrayal”, Federation of Turkish American Societies, Inc., New York (1992); (See archives below)

*********************************

QUESTION 3:
WE ALSO TALKED TO THE ARMENIAN SURVIVORS WHO TOLD US TERRIBLE STORIES ABOUT THE GENOCIDE. DO YOU HAVE SURVIVORS, TOO, WHO WE CAN INTERVIEW?

Answer 3 : Yes, we do have survivors and examples of oral history can be found at Turkish websites. They may not be as many as Armenians’ because Armenians and Greeks have done a better job of killing their victims.

I , unfortunately, can not bring the dead victims of Armenian and Greek excesses. I am saying this with a heavy heart, because you are looking at a product of Turkish Genocide in the Balkans, which everyone is curiously silent about. Just look at my last name: KIRLIKOVALI. The whole Balkan tragedy is packed there… It means "a person from KIRLIK-OVA" in Turkish. KIRLIK-OVA is the name of a little village near today’s Thessaloniki in Greece (Selanik, under Turkish rule). (See Archives below for the rest of this answer)

References:

Justin McCarthy, Death and Exile, The Darwin, Princeton Press (1995), “..Much of the history of Anatolia, the Caucasus, the Balkans and southern Russia cannot be understood without a proper assessment of the Muslim dead and Muslim refugees…”

Bilal Simsir, Rumeli’den Turk Gocleri (Immigration From The Balkans), Turk Tarih Kurumu (Turkish Institute Of History), Ankara, (1968), (In Turkish)

*****************************

QUESTION 4:
WE HAVE SEEN MANY MISSIONARY REPORTS DATING BACK TO THOSE DAYS. WERE THEY ALL LYING?

Answer 4 : No, some of them actually had their hearts in the right place. Here is one example:

Lamsa, George M., a missionary well known for his research on Christianity, The Secret of the Near East, The Ideal Press, Philadelphia (1923), page 133, clarified the difference between reality and propaganda as follows:

"…In some towns containing ten Armenian houses and thirty Turkish houses, it was reported that 40,000 people were killed, about 10,000 women were taken to the harem, and thousands of children left destitute; and the city university destroyed, and the bishop killed. It is a well-known fact that even in the last war the native Christians, despite the Turkish cautions, armed themselves and fought on the side of the Allies. In these conflicts, they were not idle, but they were well supplied with artillery, machine guns and inflicted heavy losses on their enemies…"

As you can see, Armenian fabrications were exposed, but never found their ways to newspaper columns. Only anti-Turkish exaggerations, biased stories found quick spots in newspapers and journals across the US. The more anti-Muslim and anti-Turkish the missionary reports were, the more popular the stories got.

None of their reports mentioned the suffering endured by Turks and other Muslims, as if they did not exit. Half the story was missing in their reports. Would you rely on a report or testimony where half the story is missing?

Look what E. Alexander Powell, An American, says in his book, The Struggle for Power in Moslem Asia, The Century Co., New York & London (1923), pages 32-33,

“…Now I can readily understand and make allowance for the public's errors and misconceptions, for it has had, after all, no means of knowing that it has been systematically deceived, but I can find no excuse for those newspapers which, clinging to a policy of vilifying the Turk, failed to rectify the anti-Turkish charges printed in their columns even when it had been proved to the satisfaction of most fair-minded persons that they were unjustified…A case in point was the burning of Smyrna in September, 1922. There was scarcely a newspaper of importance in the United States that did not editorially lay that outrage at the door of the Turks, without waiting to hear the Turkish version, yet, after it had been attested by American, English, and French eye-witnesses, and by a French commission of inquiry, that the city had been deliberately fired by the Greeks and Armenians in order to prevent it falling into Turkish hands, how many newspapers had the courage to admit that they had done the Turks a grave injustice?…"

So if the claim was anti-Turkish, then you read about it in every newspaper, in every journal, but if the claim was refuted, then the newspaper or journals simply did not print them. So much for truth in reporting in those days…

*****************************

QUESTION 5:
THERE WAS ALSO COURT MARTIAL WHERE MANY WERE FOUND GUILTY. DOESN’T THAT PROVE THAT THE TURKS WERE GUILTY?

Answer 5 : Yes, but those courts held by an Ottoman government under occupation, whose leaders would do anything to appease the occupiers. Some charges were arbitrary, others were exaggerated; defendants were not given proper chance to present their case; dubious documents and witnesses were introduced; due process was not followed. The term “kangaroo court” more properly describes these proceeding. So much so, that the British whisked the top government officials to exile in Malta, where they awaited their court proceeding, because the British simply didn’t trust this “Kangaroo Court”. Though the British had full access to the Ottoman documents and plenty of time, they produced no documents that could be used at a court of law to convict Ottoman officials. So, after 2 years of detention at Malta, all the Ottoman top government officials were let go. The Malta Tribunal was over before it could start; case closed. Here is another example of Armenian bias. They will tell you about Kangaroo courts of occupied Istanbul, but they fail to remind you a proper court proceedings that took place at Malta at about the same time. Talk about bias and bigotry… Here is a good example, don’t you think?

Dr. Tuncer Kuzay, a Turkish-American intellectual, summarized this fact eloquently in a press release in April 12, 1999:

“… The Armenians have been feverishly trying to attach a charge of genocide on the Turks for the past 84 years or so. In the relentless pursuit of it, they have declared April 24 as the date of commemoration of this ‘alleged genocide’ . The British were the closest party to these events from 1915 to 1922 because they were the principal occupying power of the Ottoman Empire and its capital, Istanbul, and the Ottoman archives etc. As such, the British led an international war crimes tribunal on the island of Malta against 144 high Ottoman officials who were charged with war crimes against the Armenians. Subsequently 56 out of the 144 alleged criminals were deported to the Island of Malta to stand a trial. After a wide scale frantic search of all the archival material in the British and the US possession they concluded:

Sir H. Rumbold, His Majesty's High Commissioner at Istanbul as the head of the occupying powers, wrote in forwarding to London the ‘evidence’ against the deportees that ‘very few were available, that Armenian Patriarchate at Istanbul had been the principal channel through which information had been obtained, and that none of allied, associated and neutral Governments had been asked to supply evidence’. He admitted that ‘under these circumstances the Prosecution will find itself under grave disadvantage’, but he added, ‘he hoped that the American Government could supply a large amount of documentary information’. (Foreign Office document 371/6500/E. 3557).

In failing to find any legally acceptable evidence against the deportees in the hands of the occupying powers, Lord Curzon, the British foreign secretary at the time, informed Sir A. Geddes, the British Ambassador at Washington, that there was a ‘considerable difficulty’ in establishing proof of guilty against the Turkish detainees at Malta and requested him ‘to ascertain if United States Government are in possession of any evidence that could be of value for purpose of prosecution’. (Foreign Office document 371/6502/E. 5845).

On July 13 1921, the British Embassy in Washington returned the following reply: ‘I regret to inform Your Lordship that there was nothing therein which could be used as evidence against the Turks who are being detained for trial at Malta. Having regard to this stipulation and the fact that the reports in the possession of the Department of State do not appear in any case to contain evidence against these Turks which would be useful even for the purpose of corroborating information already in possession of His Majesty's Government, I fear that nothing is to be hoped from addressing any further inquiries to the United States Government in this matter'. (Foreign Office document 71/6504/E.8519. R.C. Craige , British Embassy in Washington to Lord Curzon, No. 722, of July 13, 1921.) Subsequently all the Ottoman detainees were dismissed of charges and exchanged for the British prisoners in Turkey. And there were no war crimes charges, let alone a charge of a "genocide" of the Armenians.

In 1999, the Armenians appealed to the British Government to recognize the alleged Armenian genocide to which the British Government replied. On April 14, 1999 the PA News from London reported: "A bid to get the British Government to recognize as genocide the deportation and massacre and slaughter of thousands of Armenians by the Ottoman government of Turkey in 1915, was rejected by ministers in the Lords tonight". Foreign Office spokesman, Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale, said "the British Government had condemned the massacres at the time. But in the absence of unequivocal evidence that the Ottoman administration took a specific decision to eliminate the Armenians under their control at that time, British governments have not recognized those events as indications of genocide".

"Nor do we believe it is the business of governments of today to review events of over 80 years ago, with a view to pronouncing on them. The events of 1915-16 remain a painful issue in relation to two states with which we enjoy excellent relations".

There is one more episode to this saga. The British Government's position on the "Armenian genocide" allegations has been expressed once again in a written response by Baroness Scotland of Asthal to a question on February 7, 2001 at the House of Lords as follows : "Lord Biffen asked Her Majesty's Government: Whether they will list the factors which have dissuaded them from acknowledging as genocide the Armenian massacre in 1915. "

Baroness Scotland of Asthal wrote back:

".The Government, in line with previous British Governments, have judged the evidence not to be sufficiently unequivocal to persuade us that these events should be categorised as genocide as defined by the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide, a convention which was drafted in response to the Holocaust and is not retrospective in application. The interpretation of events in Eastern Anatolia in 1915-16 is still the subject of genuine debate amongst historians."

As one can clearly see, even the British, whose recanted and obsolete wartime propaganda during WWI (i.e. the so called "Blue Book") upon which the Armenians have been basing their baseless allegations, flatly refuse to support Armenian allegations.

How many refutations does it take to make the case that “genocide” allegations can not be supported by hard, historical, reliable, court-acceptable evidence. How come Morgenthau’s reports, so damning to the Turks, were rejected by the British prosecutors in Malta? How come the alleged Hitler’s quote was rejected by American prosecutors in Nuremberg? How come all the missionary reports, Armenian church reports were not enough the convict Turks for 86 years? Becaes, my friend, they were fake, fake, fake, and fake again…

The plain truth is Armenians used propaganda, agitation, armed violence, rebellion, betrayal, exaggerations, fabrications, and lies, between 1890 and 1915, and international terrorism between 1922 and 2001, but none helped them achieve what they really wanted: an expanded “Greater Armenia” for Armenians, mostly carved out of Turkish lands… Turks won the war then… Armenians simply can not accept this simple truth and put it behind them… As a result, they attacked Azerbaijan in 1989, and captured by force 20% of sovereign Azerbaijani soil. More than 1.5 million Azerbaijani non-combatants are forced out of their homes at gunpoint by Armenian aggressors… Those forgotten refugees are now spending their 9th freezing winter in leaky tents with little food or medicine, with no end in sight to Armenian demands and atrocities… US humanitarian help is stopped by the manipulation of the US Congress by the Armenian lobby. Here we are, discussing Armenian allegations after 86 years, while 1.5 million people are suffering for real in Caucasus.

(End of interview)

************************************

Mr. Yuksel Oktay, a Turkish-American intellectual whose contributions to the better understanding of the Turkish-Armenian conflict is enormous, also wrote to Channel One and answered those same five questions as follows.

Mr. Derrick Shore
Channel One Anchorman

I read a transcript of your interview conducted on April 11, 2001 with Ergun Kirlikovali, a resident of California. As a concerned Turkish-American, I would like to respond to your questions as well, which you can use in your broadcast, if you so choose.

QUESTION 1: 1.5 MILLION ARMENIANS WERE KILLED IN THE GENOCIDE THAT TOOK PLACE BETWEEN 1915 AND 1923. WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT?
First, the entire statement is false. There was neither genocide, nor 1.5 million Armenians were killed. These are false and exaturated claims being perpetuated by some Armenians, which is refuted even by the existence of the Armenian Turks still living in Turkey today.

Second, the conflict between the Armenians and the Turks started well before 1915 and continued through 1920. To tie these dates to 1923, the date of the founding of the Republic of Turkey, is nonsense.

Turks were fighting along the four fronts of the Ottoman Empire, from the Balkans to the Caucasus, during the First World War, not only against the British, the French, and the Russians, but also the Ottoman-Armenians who rebelled against their own government and joined the invading enemy forces. These are presented in detail in many books, some of which are listed in the attached two page brochure, which also gives a brief summary of the events, and the number of Turks killed as over 2.5 million.

QUESTION 2. WE ARE COMING HERE FROM USC WHERE WE SAW MANY DOCUMENTS, PHOTOS ETC. ON THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE. WHAT ABOUT THEM? DO YOU HAVE SIMILAR DOCUMENTS TOO?
It is true that the Armenians and their sympathizers (due to same religion) have produced an enormous number of books, publications, etc.. However some of these include totally false or fake documents, such as "Talat Pasa Telegrams" and "Quotations from Hitler". If you read one of William Saroyan's books contained at the Saroyan Center at the Stanford University at Palo Alto, you can see that the "enemy of the Armenians was not the Turks, it was the Russians". On the other hand, there are only a few books that tell the truth, such as the books by Kamuran Gurun and Justin McCarthy. If all countries, including the Armenians, would open their national archives, like Turkey did, the real truth would emerge.

QUESTION 3. WE ALSO TALKED TO THE ARMENIAN SURVIVORS WHO TOLD US TERRIBLE STORIES ABOUT THE GENOCIDE. DO YOU HAVE SURVIVORS, TOO, WHO WE CAN INTERVIEW?
The Armenians did not relocate the Turks from their villages or towns, they massacred them and buried them in unmarked mass graves, and some of which are being unearthed even now. The mass killings of Turks by the Armenians in the eastern provinces, from Sivas to Erzincan to Agri, especially as the Russian army evacuated and Armenian irregulars took over their places, are well documented. For example, please see books by the famous American educator John Dewey, who tells about these events. And, as Ergun Kirlikovali has mentioned, there are Turkish eyewitnesses also, but they choose not to speak about evil things, though some were interviewed by the Turkish TV recently. The stories of unspeakable Armenian atrocities they tell are not easy to listen to or comprehend, let alone tell.

QUESTION 4. WE HAVE SEEN MANY MISSIONARY REPORTS DATING BACK TO THOSE DAYS. WERE THEY ALL LYING?
This is a subject, which can not be answered in a few sentences. I myself went to American high school in Talas and Tarsus, in Anatolia (Turkish heartland), which were initially serving only non-Muslim minorities in Turkey, especially Armenians. Some books state that some missionaries provided false information on the Armenian deaths while totally ignoring the killings of Turks by Armenians.

QUESTION 5: THERE WAS ALSO COURT MARTIAL WHERE MANY WERE FOUND GUILTY. DOESN’T THAT PROVE THAT THE TURKS WERE GUILTY?
No, they were mock trials conducted by a puppet government in order to appease the occupying allied forces. There was no “due process”; people got convicted on the word of the Armenian avenger, without evidence. When the British tried to convict the Turkish leaders later in Malta (1919-1921), they could not find any evidence that could be “presented at a court of law” and, consequently, the massacre charges were dropped and the Turks were let go.

Finally, I am glad that this subject, "Armenian Issue", probably best described as the "Armenian Tragedy", which was brought about by themselves, after living with the Turks and other nationalities peacefully under the Ottoman rule for close to 700 years, is being discussed openly. I hope you will have a chance, and the courage, also to ask the supporters of the Armenian issue on what their ancestors did to the Turks.

Best regards.
Yuksel Oktay, Istanbul, Turkey, April 23, 2001

*********************************

The following letter of protest was sent to the Channel One anchorman and his assistant Cathy, for only allowing a few seconds out of a 75 minute interview, while the Armenian speakers and guests were givine more than 10 minutes. Is this fair? Is this balanced? Is this ethical? Is this American? You be the judge.

SUBJECT: MY DISAPPOINTMENT WITH YOUR BIASED COVERAGE OF THE "ALLEGED" GENOCIDE
DATE: WEDNESDAY, 25 APR 2001 (E-MAILED AT 21:25:05 )

Dear Cathy & Derrick:
I must say I am deeply disappointed with your incredibly biased coverage of the “alleged" genocide. We have discussed this matter for an hour and a quarter, but you aired only 10 seconds of it. You devoted 98 % to Armenian point of view, but only gave 2% to its rebuttal. Do you really believe this is fair? Do you feel this is ethical?

When I was notified of your request for an interview, I was also warned me that such interviews are mainly for façade and that there is a real possibility that they will not use any part of the interview or use only a minute fraction of the other side of the story as a token. Since your approach seemed genuine, like that of an independently minded and fair journalist seeking the truth, and not like that of a partisan or a lobbyist, I decided to go ahead with your interview.

You showed extensive footage from a Hovanissian, but never mentioned the fact that the "alleged" Armenian Genocide was refuted by 69 top historians, several of whom were his contemporaries and colleagues, who decided to characterize these events as "inter communal warfare fought by Muslim & Christian irregular forces". I showed you the documents. Apparently, this one Armenian historian, Hovannissian, was more important or credible in your mind, than 69 historians, representing universities like UCLA, Princeton, Harvard, and others. It appears your mind was made up before you set foot at my company for the interview.

Then you showed a couple of survivors, but failed to mention the fact that I am a product of Turkish Genocide of the Balkans, like each and every living Turk is a product of genocides that took place in the Balkans, Southern Russia, the Caucasus, Iraq, Syria, and the Aegean Islands. Especially victims of Armenian atrocities in Eastern Anatolia could not be interviewed by you, because, unlike the survivors you talked to, the Turkish victims were annihilated and dead people can’t talk… Ottoman-Turks and Muslims were killed by the Ottoman-Armenians in the East and the Ottoman-Greeks in the West, while Caucasus-Turks and Muslims were killed by Russians and Russian-Armenians.

All told, there were 4 times as many Turkish victims as there were Armenian victims, but even this ratio didn’t seem to bother you one bit. The selective morality, displayed in this case, is shameful. This is what racial discrimination is all about. Whether on religious, moral, racial, ethnic, or other grounds, you have discriminated against the Americans of Turkish origin. Last time I looked, discrimination of any kind was illegal in this country.

I think it would go a long ways towards reducing our anguish, disappointment, and frustration, as well as this strong sense of being duped, if you could post our rebuttal to the allegations made by your many Armenian guests in your show.

Below, I am providing a brief rebuttal to the allegations your Armenian guests leveled, unopposed, thanks to your biased editing. I wish to see this posted within the next few days, in all fairness, with no more "editing" or counter-rebuttal by Armenians.

Sincerely,
Ergun KIRLIKOVALI
Attachment: Rebuttal To The Armenian Allegations Aired On April 24, 2001

(Writer’s epilogue: No Turkish-American rebuttal was aired or posted in the Channel One website in the year 2001 or since. Here is a typical example of bias in the American media. Does any reader need any more evidence to conclude that what is described above is bigotry? )

------------------------------------------------------------------
© Ergun KIRLIKOVALI
ergun@turkla.com

This article is kindly permitted by Mr Ergun KIRLIKOVALI
------------------------------------------------------------------

Read Full Post !