Wall street Journal - New York Times



Sources of information on alleged Armenian claims of Genocide

against The Turks.

In order to establish truth and to confront racist bias against Turks, read below the works and commentaries of scholars and researchers,

Find out what former Armenian Premier Senin Ovanes Katchaznouni said during the 1923 Dashnak Party Conference in Bucharest-Romania, about the mistakes and misguided activities –treachery- of Armenian extremists and activists. Available from [email protected] ISBN 975-343-438-3

You may peruse www.tallarmeniantale.com, by author Holdwater & The “Armenian Research” Foundation or peruse

Read on internet www.tallarmeniantale.com/c-f-dixon-BOOK.htm, written by a British officer in 1916 – the portrayal of Anatolian Armenians,

Examine Guenter Lewy’s “The Armenian Massacres in Turkey, A Disputed Genocide” ISBN-13:978-0-87480-849-0 available on Amazon.com (Jewish author from USA)

Read Sukru Server’s ‘GENOCIDE OF TRUTH’ freely available on Armenians-1915.blogspot.com or direct from [email protected] ISBN 9789756516249

An incredible account of one man’s quest for truth against Armenian fabrications and distortions of history!

Prof. Salahi Sonyel’s “The Turco-Armenian Imbroglio” ISBN-0-9504886-6-6, available at Cyprus Turkish Association 0207 437 4940 [email protected] (Cypriot Turk author)

films to watch are:

“The Armenian Revolt 1894-1920” documentary DVD by Third Coast Films, P.O. Box 664, Clarion, PA 16214, USA, [email protected] (by an American Director) This is a MUST !!

“Sari Gelin’ documentary DVD through www.sarigelinbelgeseli.com [email protected] (maybe available on eBay) (by a Turkish Director)


ISBN 1=4243=1004-0 (obtainable from [email protected]), (Turkish author) also read Sukru S Aya’s ([email protected]) book ‘Genocide of Truth’ (İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi–2008) ISBN 9789756516249 or have a look at www.armenians-1915.blogspot.com by Turkish Armenians (including free downloadable books and automatic translation of site text into several languages),
“MYTH OF TERROR’ by late Erich Feigl (1986)Zeitgeschichte/Bucherdienst Austria (Austrian Author) which contains the signatures of 63 foreign Academics refuting the Armenian claims

for Armenian terrorism against Turks.. why Armenians are not talking about their terrorists?

an interesting read (in 3 languages) of memoirs of a Russian Officer on Armenians at (click on the book for downloading) or access it and others at (from Turkish Military archives reputed to be richest on this issue)

There are also several powerful books on this subject by the American author Justin McCarthy


The Turkish Government supports the establishment of an independent International commission to research the background of the Turco-Armenian relations during the 1st World War (see OSCE resolution) but the Armenians are refusing to participate!. Do ask them why..! If truth scares them, then let it be. Simply put, they are afraid of the truth surfacing and damaging the bond holding together their people.


Comments by neutral Scholars


Outcomes of Trials

The Ottoman archives remain largely unconsulted. When so much is missing from the fundamental source material, no historical narrative can be called complete and no conclusions can be called balanced.”

Prof. Jeremy Salt

Armenian application of Genocide related claim and consequences thereof is


European Union, Luxembourg Council of Justice – case heard on the 17th December 2003 and an outcome of appeal of the 16th January, 2004

The Middle East Journal 61.2 (Spring 2007): p348(2).

The Armenian Rebellion at Van, by Justin McCarthy, Esat Arslan, Cemalettin Takiran, and Omer Turan. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press, 2006. vii + 266 pages. 11 Maps. Notes. Appends. to p. 285. Bibl. to p. 291. Index to p. 296. $25.

Reviewed by Edward J. Erickson

This timely book follows and complements recent work by Donald Bloxham [The Great Game of Genocide, reviewed in The Middle East Journal (MEJ), Vol. 60, No. 1 (Winter 2006)] and Guenter Lewy [The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide, reviewed in MEJ, Vol. 60, No. 2 (Spring 2006)]. Both Bloxham and Lewy contend that there was an actual Armenian rebellion in 1915, which was encouraged and aided by the Allies, and aimed at the establishment of an Armenian state. Moreover, Bloxham asserts that ill-timed active collaboration with the Allies by Armenian nationalist leaders led their people into a disastrous confrontation with the Ottomans. The Armenian Rebellion at Van supports these contentions by showcasing them with a fascinating case study of the well-known uprising in Van, the eastern Anatolian city and province, in the spring of 1915.

The authors begin with three chapters detailing the geographic, economic, and demographic setting of Van province, with attention to the origins and politics of the Armenian committees, especially those of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (the ARF or Dashnaks). Chapter four examines the rebellion of 1896. Chapter five, titled the “Development of the Revolution, 1897-1908,” outlines the growth of an armed Armenian movement by examining its leadership, tactics, arms smuggling, and Russian connections. Chapter six, on the period 1908-1912, briefly covers the deteriorating relations between the Young Turks and the ARF, while chapter seven covers the events preceding the outbreak of war.

The heart of the book, chapter eight, is a detailed examination, at the tactical level, of what happened at Van in late March and April 1915. Using previously unavailable documents from the Ottoman military archives in Ankara, the authors offer a picture of a carefully planned and executed rebellion that was sponsored by and closely coordinated with the Russians, who launched an offensive aimed at seizing the city. The concluding two chapters explain the destruction of both the Armenian and Muslim communities in the province and present an analysis of why the Ottomans failed to suppress the rebels.

So why read another book about the Armenians’? This book represents a massive revision of what is known in the West about the Van uprising. Of particular importance is a well-developed exposition of Armenian leadership, organizational architecture, professionalism in military training, innovative tactics, and weaponry that is integrated into an explanation of how the battles were fought. The authors assert that the rebels were not simply city residents reacting in self-defense but were instead well led, tightly organized, and dangerous. They present a convincing argument based on new archival information. The maps are unusually clear and include (for the first time) small-scale municipal maps of the city of Van as it existed in 1915. The book is a gold mine of new and detailed information.

This reviewer found the overall tone of the book to be unusual in its fair treatment of the Armenians by Turkish scholars. Professor McCarthy and his Turkish co-authors present the Armenians as able practitioners of the art of insurgency and note that the Armenian leader “Aram Manukian must be counted as one of the geniuses of guerrilla warfare” (p. 258). Moreover, they conclude that the Armenian insurrections were instrumental in crippling the Ottoman strategic position in Anatolia, and they also reinforce Bloxham’s assertion that the Armenians were badly let down by their Russian allies. Unfortunately, there are minor factual errors in the text. For example, Ottoman casualties at Sankaml are overstated by 100% (p. 179) while the cited Turkish source (Turk Harbi) actually gives much lower numbers. The authors erroneously give the date of a critical order from Enver Pasha on security precautions as September 25, 1914 (p. 190), when the correct date is February 25, 1915. Incorrect information is given on the composition of the First Expeditionary Force (p. 210) that includes flawed British estimates of non-existent bis divisions. There is also a lack of clarity and completeness in citing the Turkish archives; the authors rarely detail what the document is. Instead, they choose to list only its archival call number. However, these are small issues in what is otherwise a very valuable contribution to the field.

Specialists and interested readers alike will understand and appreciate this book. It is clearly written, and establishes an important corrective to the extant Western historiography. While it will certainly irritate the global Armenian lobby, this reviewer would encourage those seeking a balanced and informed understanding of these events to read The Armenian Rebellion at Van. It is well worth the price and highly recommended.

Lt. Col. Edward J. Erickson, USA (Retired), International Research Associates, LLC


The following are excerpts from a review essay by Masaki Kakiszaki, University of Utah, on a newly released book by Guenter Lewy, titled “The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide” University of Florida Press, 2005.   The full review is published in Critique: Critical Middle Eastern Studies, Spring 2007.

Ethnic Cleansing or Genocide?

by Masaki Kakiszaki, University of Utah,

The full review is published in Critique: Critical Middle Eastern Studies, Spring 2007.

Guenter Lewy’s The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide has unleashed debate in the United States as well as in different countries such as Canada, France, Germany, and Turkey. In the United States, Lewy’s articles expressing skepticism about historiographies constructed by both Armenian and Turkish historians about the Armenian genocide appeared in Middle East Quarterly and Commentary; in subsequent issues, these journals published several letters to the editors from readers, mostly Armenians, who objected to Lewy’s thesis. (…) It is important to examine Lewy’s argument in order to understand the reasons for Armenian scholastic anger against the book. The attacks on the book demonstrate how an inquiry into the tragic events of the First World War can be removed from historical context and elevated to mythological level, a process that, in turn, prevents any rational exchange between the two sides.

(…) Lewy’s purpose is to evaluate the consistency and validity of the ongoing debate over the evidence for the Armenian massacres in Ottoman Turkey. The literature that pertains to the fate of the Armenian population during the First World War involves two narratives. On the one hand, Armenian scholars present this tragedy as the first genocidal event of the twentieth century. They argue that the Armenian massacre was a product of the Ottoman government’s special intent to deport and exterminate the entire Armenian population in the empire. On the other hand, Turks contend that this event was an outcome of Armenian collaboration with the Russians, inter-communal warfare in eastern Turkey, and the harsh economic and social conditions of war (such as food shortages and the spread of diseases).

(…) This book tackles the question not of the scale of Armenian suffering but of ‘the premeditation thesis.’ Although there are wide discrepancies with regard to the total number of victims, at least both camps acknowledge that hundreds and thousands of Armenians lost their lives during the deportation. Thus, Lewy focuses on the dispute over the cause of Armenian massacres by inspecting the way in which Armenians and Turks have offered contradictory or competing accounts (…) He concludes that an Ottoman intent to organize the annihilation of Armenians cannot be determined with the evidence that so far has become available to scholars. Thus, he rejects the term ‘genocide’ to describe the mass killing of Armenians, while admitting the indirect responsibility of the Ottoman local government officials for the loss of life of a large number of Armenians.

(…) He criticizes the manner in which Armenian authors rely on the consequences of the Armenian deportation to prove that the Young Turk leaders had prior plans for total destruction of the Armenian population. He argues that ‘objective results are not the same as subjective intent’. Furthermore, Lewy claims that the Armenian side ignores the multiplicity of cases in the tragedy by playing down the roles of starvation and disease, which afflicted not only the Armenian deportees but also Muslim Turks. Lewy also finds problems in the Turkish version of the stories

(…)  As Lewy points out, ‘Both Turks and Armenians have accused each other of horrible crimes while at the same time denying or minimizing the misdeeds committed by their own forces’. The Turkish side tends to dodge the responsibility of atrocities against Armenians by shifting the blame from the Ottoman government to ‘the civil war cause.’ On the other hand, Armenian authors ignore the Armenian revolutionary movements’ relationship with Russia and the threat this relationship posed to the Ottoman government.

(…) Lewy’s book aims to clarify the gap in our knowledge of the Armenian suffering. Lewy ‘reconstructs’ a history of this tragedy by strictly distinguishing the confirmed facts from the mere assertions of historians who fail to support their claims with substantive evidence. In this process he attempts to determine how the government decided on the deportation plan, how it was implemented in different regions and cities, who were responsible for the massacres, and how many people died. The chapters in this section reveal the diversity in the levels of Armenian suffering and the variation of the degree of implementing the deportation. This picture seems to imply that the deportation of the Armenian population was not carried out in a systematic or well-organized manner, which would be necessary for the purpose of total destruction of the Armenian community.

(…) In terms of the number of victims, different authors have generated different estimations. It is also difficult to determine the precise death toll because we have neither an exact figure for the prewar Armenian population nor an accurate count for the number of survivors. It also is impossible to distinguish the number killed by Turks and Kurds and those who perished due to starvation and disease. After a critical examination of the Armenian and Turkish historiographies, Lewy proposes an alternative explanation. He argues that ‘it was possible for the country to suffer an incredibly high death toll without a premeditated plan of annihilation’ for several reasons. First, the Ottoman government, despite its willingness, failed to arrange an orderly process of relocation of Armenians because of its institutional ineptness. The systematic and organized relocation of tens of thousands of Armenians proved beyond the ability of the Ottoman government. Food shortages and epidemic diseases which the authorities could not prevent or control exacerbated the environment for Armenians during the course of the deportation. Additionally, the government could not provide adequate protective measures for the Armenian deportees from hostile Kurds, Circassians and others. According to Lewy, these severe conditions and the inability of the Ottoman government to provide protection resulted in the high death toll of the Armenians. Thus, while he concedes that the government bears responsibility to a certain extent for the outcome, he emphasizes that it is the government’s ineptness rather than a premeditated plan to exterminate the Armenians that caused the Armenian tragedy.

One of the contributions of Lewy’s work is that he clarifies what we have learned as confirmed facts from both the Armenian and Turkish historians. Without leaning to either side, he accepts evidence and arguments that are substantiated by other sources. His neutrality becomes obvious in Part IV, which discusses the politicization of the controversy over the Armenian massacres. He argues that the Armenian side’s argument of the premeditation thesis lacks authentic documentary evidence and suffers from a logical fallacy. But he also criticizes the Turkish side for distorting the historical fact by translating the Armenian massacres into mere ‘excesses’ or ‘intercommunal warfare’.

(…) The personal memories of individual Turks and Armenians are not separable from the collective social memory of their communities because people can be confident about the accuracy of their remembrances only when their own memory is confirmed by others’ remembrances. The politicization of the Armenian massacres, then, facilitates the transmission of collective memories from generation to generation; Armenian campaigns for the recognition of the genocide and the airing of the Turkish government’s argument have functioned as mechanisms by which both Armenians and Turks are reminded of the past and their distinctive identities. The current rigid adherence of both sides to their historiographies thus is likely to lead to the deepening of the gap between them, not pave a way to closing this gap. For this reason, Lewy suggests that historians ought to keep the door of research open for further exploration of the Armenian massacres. Political confirmation of the Armenian massacres as historically established genocide, he argues, will deprive future historians of opportunities to start collaborative research for the advancement of common understanding grounded in historical facts rather than propaganda.

(…) Lewy knows that an attempt to put all the aspects of the Armenian massacres into a single picture as a whole ignores the variation of stories. In this tragedy, there is a diversity of experiences lived by each group of people. Therefore, Lewy adopts a method with which he constructs his own historiography by aggregating different local incidents and experiences. The Armenian and Turkish historians take the opposite approach. They look into the events from the pictures that they want to see. In this process, evidence and incidents that may disconfirm their theses are likely to be ignored in their analytic frameworks.

There is one point that I find unsatisfactory in Lewy’s book: he refrains from making his definition of genocide explicit while claiming that ‘the attempt to decide whether the Armenian massacres in Ottoman Turkey fit . . . definitions [of genocide] strikes me as of limited utility’ (…) However, this debate still is of substantive importance because parliaments in several countries have proclaimed this tragedy to be an instance of genocide. For example, in the fall of 2006 the French parliament adopted a bill that criminalizes the denial of the Armenian genocide. What is relevant to Lewy’s argument is that the politicians who vote on these resolutions are influenced exclusively by their ethnic Armenian constituents, and they rely only on an Armenian version of the history of 1915. The politicians are not without their own prejudices, and their determinations never can substitute for actual history. In the French parliament, Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin argued that it is ‘not a good thing to legislate on issues of history and of memory,’ but his caution was ignored. These resolutions spotlight politics, not the truth, and are therefore debatable.

(…) The attack against Lewy’s book and the controversy created by Peter Balakian and others who share his views indicate the problem of academic freedom of speech with respect to events associated with the Turkish-Armenian conflicts. There are coordinated efforts by Armenian NGOs and scholars to silence and suppress different interpretations about the events of 1915. Simultaneously, free speech about the Armenian massacres also is denied in Turkey.

(…) In the final analysis, Lewy’s book indeed has become like dynamite to both sides by pointing out the shortcomings of both Turkish and Armenian scholarship and revealing the difficulty of objective debate on the Armenian tragedy. It is very unproductive for diaspora Armenians to turn the Armenian genocide thesis into a source of identity. The shift prevents contextualization of the events and turns them into mythological facts outside of any rational inquiry. Lewy tried to de-sacralize the Armenian thesis by subjecting it to rational inquiry. Lastly, it is also important to mention that Lewy’s book has been relatively favored in Turkey despite his criticism of Turkish historiography on the Armenian massacres and the failure of Turkish historians to challenge the official view endorsed by the state. Since its publication, the Turkish media has presented Lewy’s book as a new scholarly work that supports the Turkish explanation of the Armenian killings, but the media also has ignored Lewy’s disapproval of the Turkish historiography. It seems that the Turkish side is satisfied with Lewy’s conclusion that the Armenian killing cannot be confirmed as a genocide ‘as of now,’ even though he criticizes Turkish historiography. In other words, Lewy’ book once again has illuminated that both sides simply are concerned whether the Armenian massacre in 1915 was or was not a genocide, an issue which Lewy has problematized in his work.


BRITISH GOVERNMENT position vis-à-vis Armenian claims

“that the evidence is not sufficiently unequivocal to persuade us that these events should be categorised as Genocide as defined by the 1948 UN Convention on genocide”

Foreign & Commonwealth Office, London – dated the 22nd February, 2006


To date, there exists NO legally binding United Nations resolution or International Court judgement to support the Armenian claims. In year 2000, The United Nations stated that they do not recognise -alleged- Armenian genocide. Farhan Haq, 05.10.2000, Spokesman for The UN Secretary General

There exist recognition claims, which are NOT tried and tested at any International Court of Law. So far, the The Armenians have refused invitation for a legal trial of their claim!

As stated, neither The UNITED NATIONS nor The INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE/HR accept Armenian claims. If the Armenians are right, why are they not pursuing their claim vigorously in a Court of Law?

In addition to Swedish and Israeli Parliaments refuting the Armenian claims (whilst some other Parliaments accepting it on political grounds)

Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe ‘OSCE’ accepts (2nd of July 2008) the Turkish thesis, re: the so called Armenian ‘Genocide’

The motion says that “The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly encourages the formation of joint history commissions by historians and experts from the third countries in case of a research into political and military archives to scientifically and unbiasedly enlighten a disputed period in history in an effort to serve transparency and common understanding among the member states” But the Armenians are refusing to be part of such a commission..!! ask what are they afraid of? .. OSCE has 320 members from 56 countries around the world, so are they all wrong? read more at:

Are you aware? that an attempt by the Armenians to manipulate the European Union resolution C-190 of 16th of June 1987 has been dismissed by The Court of First Instance of the European Communities {Luxemburg Council of Justice}

ie. Original hearing – Case T-346/03, Krikorian et al. v. European

Paliamente et al., Order of the Court of First

Instance, 17 December 2003,

Court found the claims for compensation manifestly unfounded and brought a verdict that the application was “unjust” and “bereft of any foundation”.

Appeal – Case C-18/04 P, Krikorian et al. v. European

Parliament et al., European Court of Justice,

Lodged 16th January, 2004 , heard 29 October 2004. See also Case C-18/04, P(R), Krikorian et al. v. European Parliament et al., European Court of Justice,

13 September 2004

Original decision was later reconfirmed upon appeal to the European Court of Justice on 29 October 2004’

Furthermore, it stated that the decision of the European Council was “completely political”, consequently it had not a sanction force, and that it could be changed at any moment. This was the justification that the decision of 1987 (and indeed the same for 2004) was not valid from a juridical point of view. Therefore, one can safely assume that the resolutions of 1987 and 2004 were designed to put unfair (racist) pressure on Turkey, they were unjust and bordering on blatant unfairness.. Subsequently, this will also have a conviction value for other similar cases in the future… but nasty and inhumane racism must stop now!

read further opinion and references on:

This is a proof that the Armenians failed and shall fail in the future in proving their case in an Independent International Court of Law.. This is so because the truth is different than what Armenians would like us all to believe and onus is on them to prove it otherwise; Henceforth, the politically and historically misplaced European resolution C-190 of 1987 (2004) is now ineffective, akin to being null and void. In the 21st century, the EU, on whatsoever ground, can not take sides in a conflict between a Muslim and a Christian country when the Muslim Turkey is doing its best and that the EU itself claims not to be a “Christian club” {quote AxisGlobe}






Armenian claims of Genocide was then and is now


Outcome of the British Malta Military trials

of Armenian claims and subsequent acquittal of the 144 Ottoman Officers on alleged Armenian Genocide claims

Quoting from British Ambassador, Sir A Geddes in Washington to Lord Curzon in London.. upon searching for evidence against captive Ottoman officers in American Governmental and private archives – 13th July 1921

” I have the honour to inform Your Lordship that a member of my staff visited the State Department yesterday, the 12th instant, in regard to the Turks who are at present being detained at Malta with a view to a trial… He was permitted to see a selection of reports from United States Consuls on the subject of the atrocities committed in Armenia during the recent war, the reports judged by the State Department to be the most useful for the purposes of His Majesty’s Government being chosen from among several hundreds. 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. The report seems.. made mention of only two names of the Turkish officials in question… and in these cases were confined to personal opinions of those officials on the part of the writer, no concrete facts being given which could constitute satisfactory incriminating evidence. I have the honour to add that officials of the Department of State expressed the wish, in the course of conversation, that no information supplied by them in this connection should be employed in the court of law. 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 enquiries to the United States Government in this matter.”

Nor did the British archives offer any tangible evidence, thus the acquittal of the wrongly accused.

2007 – Armenian claims still stand unproven at any International Court or at the United Nations, but machinations leading to unfair propaganda, racist denigration of Turks and backdoor recognition attempts are still alive. Furthermore, these unproven Armenian claims are currently used as a convenient leverage against Turkey by whomever and whenever opportune!



And remember the 524,000 innocent Turks murdered by the Armenian terror gangs and soldiers!

These are Armenian soldiers not Turkish!!??!

200,000 Armenians were armed rather well by the Russians (fact attested to by Armenian Nubar Pasha at Paris Peace Conference in 1919) to murder 524,000 innocent Turkish lives

Note: the date of this photo is October 1914 !! furthermore, Armenians started their treachery and commenced murdering innocent Turks in 1890s.

Infact, they’ve been preparing the groundwork for treachery

since the Turko-Russian wars of 1870s !! do also remind yourselves what the “charge of the light brigade’ in Crimea was all about !!

Show us a country where grand treachery is not a capital crime! If it was a war of liberation, then they fought it against their own liberated countrymen and lost it badly and now call it ‘genocide’ as a misguided convenience ..

(read Armenian Premier Senin Ovanes Katchaznouni’s memoirs)

Of course, there is ample proof elsewhere that the treacherous Armenians, who were Ottoman citizens, armed themselves deliberately to commit grand treason against their own Government and called the unfortunate result “genocide’.

Therefore, should they then not be responsible for their own actions and cruelty? What would have any Government done in the face of such treachery? If the native Indians of North America committed such acts against the American people during WW2, what do you think would have happened? What if British, French, German, Italian or any other nation was attached in such a cowardly way?

And these are for further thought

and a public debate with Armenians

The Armenian problem started in 1878 not 1915 – Indeed Armenians had treacherous designs on Ottoman Turks since 1821 not 1915 .. history does not lie; but the Armenians seem to cherry pick dates with apparent impunity! They must face an Independent Council of World Historians to prove their case, or shut up !


Peruse and for further insight and hear direct from the Author of ‘GENOCIDE OF TRUTH’ S.Aya on [email protected]

Contrary to their claims, 200,000 Armenian traitors of circa 1915 were well armed by outside powers and that’s how Armenians rebelled and murdered 524,000 innocent Turks circa 1915 .. ask them why, but if you feel they are rather economical with truth, let us tell you how!

The Azeri Jewish leaders cited research saying that some 3,000 Mountain Jews, along with tens of thousands of Azeris, were murdered in 1918 by the Armenian bandits and nationalists in the region of Guba .. how long is that soul destroying Armenian nationalist hatred against anything ‘Turk’ is going to last?

What would you have said if 200,000 traitors armed by Nazis in the middle of WW2 rebelled, committed high treason, razed British cities and towns and murdered 524,000 innocent British men, women and children in cold blood? How would The British Government may have reacted to beginnings of an intended British Genocide?

JEWISH HOLOCAUST By the way, there were the Armenian Nazi Brigade/s –Armenische Legion- from 1935 onwards (i.e. Armenian 812th Battalion of Wehrmacht of some 20,000 men, commanded by Drastamat Kanaian –aka Dro-), The Armenian National Council of 15th December 1942 sanctioned by Alfred Rosenberg –The German Minister of Occupied areas- ) even publishing their own magazine called MITTEILUNGSBLATT DER DEUTSCH-ARMENISCHEN GESSELSCHAFT (Berlin 1938 to end 1944) what do you think they did to the innocent Jews; for example Bucharest 1935, fifth column work?

Find out what British thought of Armenians pre-WW2, on Foreign Office Document F.O 371/30031/R5337 …. ‘The Armenians (in Turkey) are extremely fruitful ground for German activities ……’ so who are these opportunistic people then ?

“Wholly opportunistic, the Armenians have been variously pro-Nazi, pro-Russia, pro-Soviet Armenia, pro-Arab, pro-Jewish, as well as anti-Jewish, anti-Zionist, anti-Communist, and anti-Soviet – whichever was expedient.” [3] Sources: [1] Turkkaya Ataov: Armenian Extermination of the Jews and Muslims, 1984, p. 91. [2] C.J. Walker: _Armenia_ London, 1980, pp. 356-8. [3] John Roy Carlson (Arthur Derounian), _Cairo to Damascus_ Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1951, p. 438.




Subject: Re:

Ara Baliozian was right when he asserted that Toynbee became a Turcophile, during the 1920’s.

“What he left out was why the Turks distrusted and disliked Armenian and other Christian minorities so much. Later, Toynbee came to feel that this lop­sidedness was a betrayal of historical truth. His sympathies, in fact, reversed themselves, partly, at least, because he felt he had been unjust to the Turks, and needed to make atonement. At the time, however, though the human de­pravity he described was deeply repugnant to him, his conscience was clear. Emphatic denunciation of Turkish barbarity seemed fully justified, based as it was on carefully evaluated evidence.”

William H. McNeil, Arnold Toynbee. A Life, New York-London-Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1985, p. 74.

Yet at the very time when the agreement was being made, I was being employed by His Majesty’s Government to compile all available documents on the recent treatment of the Armenians by the Turkish Government in a ‘Blue Book’ which was duly published and distributed as war-propaganda. […] THIS IS THE INFAMOUS BLUE BOOK!!

In attempting to express and explain the Turkish point of view, I am not seeking to suggest that it is right, or to deny the charges brought against the Turkish nation and Government for their treatment of subject peoples during the past century. Their crimes are undoubtedly exaggerated in the popular Western denunciations, and the similar crimes committed by Near Eastern Christians <Armenians and Greeks> in parallel situations are almost always passed over in silence. At the same time, the facts substantiated against the Turks (as well as against their neighbours) by authoritative investigation are so appalling that it is almost a matter of indifference, from the point of view of establishing a case, whether the embroideries of the propagandists are counterfeit or genuine. The point which I wish to make is that, if our aim is not simply to condemn but to cure, we can only modify the conduct of the Turks by altering their frame of mind, and that our only means of doing that is to change our own attitude towards them. So long as we mete out one measure to them, another to the Greeks <and Armenians>, and yet a third to ourselves, we shall have no moral influence over them.”

Arnold J. Toynbee, The Western Question in Greece and Turkey, London, Constable and Co, 1922, pp. 50 et 227.

“Robert F. Zeidner. He graduated from the American Military Academy in 1945, and while on duty in Ankara in 1957 he attended a kind of service program at Beirut American University. Dr. Zeidner was a communication officer during that time.
The university administration gives a cocktail party honoring Prof. Toynbee and some others. During this get-together. Officer Zeidner approaches Prof. Arnold Toynbee and mentions that he came from Ankara. In response A. Toynbee says, ‘Oh really? Turks are very nice people. I have Turkish friends.’ [He says this in 1957].

Officer Zeidner follows up in surprise, ‘Isn’t it controversial that you wrote those books <BLUE BOOKs> during World War I which said that Turks mercilessly killed the Armenians?’ Prof. Toynbee blushed, stood motionless for an instant, and then said ‘I was employed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and I obeyed orders. It was war propaganda material.’

In 1959, Toynbee met Stanford J. Shaw in Harvard University. S. J. Shaw asked the same question than R. F. Zeidner, and Toynbee responded the same thing (Stanford J. Shaw, From Empire to Republic. The Turkish War of National Liberation, Ankara, TTK, 2000, tome I, p. 62, n. 21).

Toynbee was an enthusiastic supporter of Kemalism, from 1922 to his death. The only article available online about this question, to my knowledge, is in French, unfortunately:

In fact, Toynbee, after 1921, considered that the CUP government had criminal intentions, but that: 1) the Turkish people were not responsible: 2) the Armenian and Greek gangs were not less criminal. This position is very close to Ahmet Emin Yalman’s thesis (Turkey and The World War, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1930; Turkey in my Time, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1956). Yalman was a Toynbee’s friend.

From …. a friend of TRUTH ….. (a private correspondence ref: S S Aya Esq.)


An Essay by Ara Baliozian – Armenian view

Speaking of Toynbee: it is widely known that he at no time denied the reality of the Armenian genocide, and this even after he acquired Turkish friends, heard their side of the story, became a Turcophile, and learned the Turkish language. The difference between Toynbee and our nationalist historians is that Toynbee exposed not only the criminal conduct of the Turks but also the blunders of our own leadership, something our historians have at no time dared to do; which may suggest they have not dared to say everything that needed to be said; in other words, their version of the past is only partly true (which is also how propaganda is defined). I feel therefore justified in suggesting that under the guise of supporting our cause, our nationalist historians and Turcocentric ghazetajis have succeeded only in damaging our credibility in the eyes of the world and thus reducing the issue to the status of political football.

and a READER’S COMMENTARY to Ara Baliozian – Turkish view

In reference to the above article of Ara Baliozian, for whom I have a great respect for his “straightness, frankness and depth of knowledge” and other than expressing my usual appreciation, agreement for nearly all of his comments and applauding his remark about “Pirates”, I would like to comment on the above sentence as regards Arnold J. Toynbee’s becoming a Turcophile! If Ara bey knows something realiable that I don’t know who led him to such a conclusion, I will be pleased to learn from him (like many other things I learned from him)! However, in view of the various references on Toynbee in my book GENOCIDE OF TRUTH (more than twenty times / sources) I would like to make the following comments, leaving judgment to the reader..

A.  There is no doubt that young Toynbee’s first mission at “Wellington House” under Lord Bryce, was to prepare “documentary evidence to blame Turkey and convince USA to join WW1 for “humane reasons”. Between 1915-1922 Toynbee produced nearly twenty books, all heavily blaming the ENEMIES, the Germans and Turks. It is also a known fact that he worked for the British Intelligence Dept.

B-  His masterpiece “The Blue Book” where he blamed Turks for all types of genocidal crimes, was a great success. However, I have noticed below serious flaws in the dependability of this book:

1- The book was composed of the reports of US missionaries and/or other Armenian sources, sent in diplomatic bags by Ambassador Morgenthau, and they were all biased. Moreover, Morgenthau bears his signature on the Relief Report No.192 of April 1922, which contradicts his own book and the reports sent to form “The Blue Book”.

2- On page 313 of my book there is a letter by Toynbee, to Prof. Margouliuth dated June 23, 1916 which is self explanatory regarding the UNRELIABILITY of his sources versus his mission!

3- Toynbee was in the British delegation sent to Paris in 1919. His book and “all the references he had provided” were found UNSUITABLE TO MAKE A LEGAL COURT against the 144 Turkish detainees held in Malta, waiting to be put on trial for two years, and who were all returned to Turkey without any indictment.

4- On page 316, there is a letter by Toynbee to Mrs. Ekmejian written in 1966, in which he confessed that “The Blue Book was written for popaganda purposes”.

5- On page 317, there is a letter dated May 1, 1916 by US Foreign Office to him, confessing that the blanks cannot be filled and the documents used for reference are NOT ACCESSIBLE!

Hence Baliozian’s statement that Toynbee “at no time denied Armenian genocide” is paradoxical to above references and it is the first time that I hear that “Toynbee later became so friendly with Turks, that he became a Turcophile”! I will appreciate to learn who were the “Turks that could make Toynbee change his idea just for favor”! Ara bey certainly knows better than all of us that “as years pass by, what you learn either proves that you were RIGHT in your first assessment or  WRONG!  I cannot object to the sentiments and observations of Ara bey, which are always “well intended” (like all of us working in this team). As Ara bey (and myself) notice that too many historians and fanatic writers, bragging on patriotism are damaging the “unearthing of simple truths, human failures” and final compassion which must prevail for future generations. “The Armenians in Istanbul are doing fine” but they are greatly disturbed by the parasitic commentaries coming from abroad “to save them“. A century ago, it was the Armenians from Russia who were so much depressed by the Tzarist regime, who set up Hunchaks and Dashnaks (1880-90s!!) outside of Turkey to save the “Armenians of Turkey” thus bringing nothing but disaster to all their folks. The great heroes “Andranik, Kanajan, Pastermadjian” all escaped to Britain and USA, instead of sharing the disasters they brought on to their own people! There are modern fiery patriots continuously blowing animosities to keep them in business and indispensable, getting rich on the continuous donations for the ‘holy cause’! So, my sincere mission is to save my local Armenian friends from overseas Armenian saviours!

(Note: Last week I went to Surp Pirgıc Armenian hospital at Yedikule-Istanbul for some check-up and an MR appointment ten days later. Too bad that the outsider trouble-mongers were not next to me, to see how the Turkish patients-doctors communicate with Armenian doctors, staff etc. as has been the case in this institution for about 150 years! .. I therefore say “stop the outside crap and looking from a distance and seeing only what you want to see”!  Tell me “which country or nation is perfect and in full justice”! Watch “Sicko” by Michael Moore to learn how things work in USA, the heaven of human rights and democracy!) Speaking of “criminality” I have thousands of photos and writings about “Armenian crimes” which Ara avoids to admit. All humans are alike, and in this episode there are “no clean hands for any party or outside dooms-day pushers”! And how many clean hands do you see today in wars and man-made disasters? Best regards for all times and don’t believe everything you read (not even me) unless if you have “an indisputable proof”.

Sukru S. Aya

“This study may be interpreted as a token for humane values, common to all, such as decency, not lying – cheating – swindling – stealing – slandering etc. and promotes the need for trust, compassion, respect for other humans, disregarding their ethnicity, nationality or faiths, beyond their control or personal preferences!” Sukru S. Aya, author of ‘Genocide of Truth’ …

The ‘Armenian Question’ 1878-1918: a Counter-Narrative
Venue – London School of Economics, New Theatre East Building 30th January, 2008

‘Somewhere between three and four million Ottoman civilians are thought to have died during the First World War. The causes of death of both Muslims and Christians – massacre, malnutrition, exposure and disease – were the same for all but while the suffering of Christians, and especially the Armenians, has been firmly embedded in the western historical, political and cultural mainstream, the fate of the Muslims, nearly a century later, remains invisible and unexamined. The need is long overdue for deconstruction and recontextualisation of the ‘Armenian question’. Prof. J Salt





This article was made possible by the support of readers like you. Donate to Turkish Forum now.





Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *