Question Forum: Armenian Massacres

I would like to know about your political stand in the matter of Armenian genocide. Up till now the Turkish government is stubbornly refusing to accept the history. I think if the genocide was condemned and the the truth was revealed no other nations ever tried to do massacres like that in Germany during ww2 then and now in Bosnia, Kosovo, Kashmir, Palestine ..... Please I would like to receive your frank answer.

The Turkish - Doenme led - genocide against the Armenians was carried out as a dry run or prelude to the German Holocaust. As we now know, from British Embassy records from the period, the Zionist Doenme (Salonica converts from Judaism to Islam, for details see Jewlsh Freemasons Toppled Caliphate and Dajjals , Donmehs and Extra - Terrestrials) took over Turkey in July 1908. Therefore, as with Russia, the entire administration of the former Ottoman Empire, was Zionist controlled from that day to this. Whilst in Russia from 1905 under Kerenski's Judeo-Masonic government, these experiments in mass extermination - like in Palestine - were inspired and led by Zionists. As we now know, even 168 senior German officers including the head of the Luftwaffe - Milch - were Jewish. So - as with the Moscow Purge - one set of Jews are killing off another set of Jews. The Armenian massacre perpetrated by the Turkish government of the time is to be condemned, but the blame cannot be put upon Muslims or Islam.

I read the answer you gave to, "Armenian Massacres (23 -June - 2002) " and I as an Armenian, was extremely pleased with the answer you gave because it was very accurate and true. I also know for a fact that Turks and Armenians lived most harmoniously in the Ottoman Empire, that is, until the Jews came from Spain, saw this paradise and wanted it for themselves.

"The Armenian massacre perpetrated by the Turkish government of the time is to be condemned, but the blame cannot be put upon Muslims or Islam."

I fully agree as do many other Armenians (although I would prefer if you would use the correct term "genocide" instead of "massacre"). The genocide committed was under the guise of Islam by these Dunmeh Jews who professed Islam openly but practiced Judaism in secrecy.

I am told that during the time of the Armenian Genocide, Islamic religious leaders had banned Turks from Mecca because the atrocities they were committing upon the defenseless people was against the teachings of Islam. If this is true (as I have no reason to believe it not to be) can you please tell me what you know about this banning of Turks.

It is also a well known fact, that many Armenians were saved by Arabs and Moslems such as the Syrians and that is why there are so many Armenians in countries such as Syria, Lebanon, Egypt etc. Plus the fact that the Turks killed many Arabs also, is something very telling. I am presently doing some research regarding the Jewish involvement/responsibility in the Armenian Genocide, and if it's not too much trouble, I would appreciate any information you have regarding Talaat Pasha (and or other Turkish government and/or military leaders of the time), who I am told was a Jew but I have only limited information on it. As I have also been informed that many "Germans" (Turkey's ally at the time) were actually Jews and many of these Jews who were generals in the German army and many were stationed in Turkey at the time. If you have any information regarding these "Germans", such as their names, position etc, it would be very helpful in putting the blame where it really lies.

We have no information on a ban on Turks going to Makkah. The presence of Jews in the German army up to the highest level is, however, well documented in Bryan Mark Rigg's book "Hitler's Jewish Soldiers". For more on the Donme (Turkish crypto-Jews) see the chapter Carved Turkey in David Pidcock's book "Satanic Voices Ancient and modern".

Below is a Turkish reply sent to us as a response to the discussion on the Armenian genocide.

Please note: We have published this material for information only with respect to the original debate and none of its contents has been specifically checked or endorsed by the party.

The Issue: Whether within the events leading to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire genocide was perpetrated against Armenian Ottoman citizens in Eastern Anatolia.

The Ottoman Empire ruled over all of Anatolia and significant parts of Europe, North Africa, the Caucasus and Middle East for over 700 hundred years. Lands once Ottoman dominions today comprise more than 30 independent nations.

A century of ever-increasing conflict, beginning roughly in 1820 and culminating with the founding of the Republic of Turkey in 1923, characterized the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire participated in no fewer than a dozen named wars, nearly all to the detriment of the empire and its citizens. The empire contracted against an onslaught of external invaders and internal nationalist independence movements. In this context -- an imperiled empire waging and losing battles on remote and disparate fronts, grasping to continue a reign of over 700 years -- must the tragic experience of the Ottoman Armenians of Eastern Anatolia be understood. For during these waning days of the Ottoman Empire did millions die, Muslim, Jew, and Christian alike.

Yet Armenian Americans have attempted to extricate and isolate their history from the complex circumstances in which their ancestors were embroiled. In so doing, they describe a world populated only by white-hatted heroes and black-hatted villains. The heroes are always Christian and the villains are always Muslim. Infusing history with myth, Armenian Americans vilify the Republic of Turkey, Turkish Americans, and ethnic Turks worldwide. Armenian Americans bent on this prosecution choose their evidence carefully, omitting all evidence that tends to exonerate those whom they presume guilty, ignoring important events and verifiable accounts, and sometimes relying on dubious or prejudiced sources and even falsified documents. Though this portrayal is necessarily one-sided and steeped in bias, the Armenian American community presents it as a complete history and unassailable fact.

_Relevance: The truth demands that every side of a story be told. Fundamental freedoms enshrined in the U.S. Constitution protect those who choose to challenge the Armenian American view.

To oppose Armenian American orthodoxy on this issue has become risky. Any attempt to challenge the credibility of witnesses, or the authenticity of documents, or to present evidence that some of the claimed victims were responsible for their own fate is either wholly squelched or met with accusations of genocide denial. Moreover, any attempt to demonstrate the suffering and needless death of millions of innocent non-Christians enmeshed in the same events as the Anatolian Armenians is greeted with sneers, as if to say that some lives are inherently more valuable than others and that one faith is more deserving than another. The lack of real debate, enforced with a heavy hand by Armenian Americans, ensures that any consideration of what genuinely occurred nearly a century ago in Eastern Anatolia will utterly fail as a search for the truth.

Ultimately, whether to blindly accept the Armenian American portrayal is an issue of fundamental fairness and the most cherished of American rights -- free speech. Simply put, in America every person has the opportunity to tell his or her story. Armenian Americans possess the right to promote and celebrate their heritage and even to discuss ancient grievances. However, Armenian Americans seek to deny these very rights to others. This is proven by the punitive nature and sheer volume of legislation proposed in the state and federal legislatures, the one-sided curricula proposed to state boards of education, and by the vast sums of money and energy devoted to this cause. Together, these efforts only increase acrimony and antagonism.

The complete story of the vast suffering of this period has not yet been written. When that story is told, the following facts must not be forgotten.

_FACT 1: Demographic studies prove that prior to World War I, fewer than 1.5 million Armenians lived in the entire Ottoman Empire. Thus, allegations that more than 1.5 million Armenians from eastern Anatolia died must be false.

Figures reporting the total pre-World War I Armenian population vary widely, with Armenian sources claiming far more than others. British, French and Ottoman sources give figures of 1.05-1.50 million. Only certain Armenian sources claim a pre-war population larger than 1.5 million. Comparing these to post-war figures yields a rough estimate of losses. Historian and demographer, Dr. Justin McCarthy of the University of Louisville, calculates the actual losses as slightly less than 600,000. This figure agrees with those provided by British historian Arnold Toynbee, by most early editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica, and approximates the number given by Monseigneur Touchet, a French missionary, who informed the Oeuvre d'Orient in February 1916 that the number of dead is thought to be 500,000. Boghos Nubar, head of the Armenian delegation at the Paris Peace Conference in 1920, noted the large numbers who survived the war. He declared that after the war 280,000 Armenians remained in the Anatolian portion of the occupied Ottoman Empire while 700,000 Armenians had emigrated to other countries.

Clearly then, a great portion of the Ottoman Armenians were not killed as claimed and the 1.5 million figure should be viewed as grossly erroneous. Each needless death is a tragedy. Equally tragic are lies meant to inflame hatred.

_FACT 2: Armenian losses were few in comparison to the over 2.5 million Muslim dead from the same period.

Reliable statistics demonstrate that slightly less than 600,000 Anatolian Armenians died during the war period of 1912-22. Armenians indeed suffered a terrible mortality. But one must likewise consider the number of dead Muslims and Jews. The statistics tell us that more than 2.5 million Anatolian Muslims also perished. Thus, the years 1912-1922 constitute a horrible period for humanity, not just for Armenians.

The numbers do not tell us the exact manner of death of the citizens of Anatolia, regardless of ethnicity, who were caught up in both an international war and an intercommunal struggle. Documents of the time list intercommunal violence, forced migration of all ethnic groups, disease, and, starvation as causes of death. Others died as a result of the same war-induced causes that ravaged all peoples during the period.

_FACT 3: Certain oft-cited Armenian American evidence is of diminished value, having been derived from dubious and prejudicial sources.

Armenian Americans purport that the wartime propaganda of the enemies of the Ottoman Empire constitutes objective evidence. Ambassador Henry Morgenthau, who is frequently quoted by Armenian Americans, visited the Ottoman Empire with political, not humanitarian aims. His correspondence with President Wilson reveals his intent was to uncover or manufacture news that would goad the U.S. into joining the war. Given that motive, Morgenthau sought to malign the Ottoman Empire, an enemy of the Triple Entente. Morgenthau�s research and reporting relied in large part on politically motivated

Armenians; his primary aid, translator and confidant was Arshag Schmavonian, his secretary was Hagop Andonian. Morgenthau openly professed that the Turks were an inferior race and possessed "inferior blood." Thus, his accounts can hardly be considered objective.

One ought to compare the wartime writings of Morgenthau and the oft-cited Gen. J.G. Harbord to the post-war writings of Rear Admiral Mark L. Bristol, U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Turkey 1920 - 1926. In a March 28, 1921 letter he writes,

"Reports are being freely circulated in the United States that the Turks massacred thousands of Armenians in the Caucasus. Such reports are repeated so many times it makes my blood boil. The Near East Relief have the reports from Yarrow and our own American people which show absolutely that such Armenian reports are absolutely false. The circulation of such false reports in the United States, without refutation, is an outrage and is certainly doing the Armenians more harm than good. � Why not tell the truth about the Armenians in every way?"

The totality of evidence thus far uncovered by historians tells a grim story of serious inter-communal conflict, perpetrated by both Christian and Muslim irregular forces, complicated by disease, famine, and many other of war�s privations. The evidence does not, however, describe genocide.

A. The Armenians took arms against their own government. Their violent political aims, not their race, ethnicity or religion, rendered them subject to relocation.

Armenian Americans ignore the dire circumstances that precipitated the enactment of a measure as drastic as mass relocation. Armenians cooperated with Russian invaders of Eastern Anatolia in wars in 1828, 1854, and 1877. Between 1893 and 1915 Ottoman Armenians in eastern Anatolia rebelled against their government -- the Ottoman government -- and joined Armenian revolutionary groups, such as the notorious Dashnaks and Hunchaks. They armed themselves and spearheaded a massive Russian invasion of eastern Anatolia. On November 5, 1914, the President of the Armenian National Bureau in Tblisi declared to Czar Nicholas II, "From all countries Armenians are hurrying to enter the ranks for the glorious Russian Army, with their blood to serve the victory of Russian arms. � Let the Russian flag wave freely over the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus." Armenian treason is also plainly documented in the November 1914 issue of the Hunchak Armenian [Revolutionary] Gazette, published in Paris! . In a call to arms it exhorted,

"The entire Armenian Nation will join forces -- moral and material, and waving the sword of Revolution, will enter this World conflict ... as comrades in arms of the Triple Entente, and particularly Russia. They will cooperate with the Allies, making full use of all political and revolutionary means for the final victory...."

Boghos Nubar addressed a letter to the Times of London on January 30, 1919 confirming that the Armenians were indeed belligerents in World War I. He stated with pride,

"In the Caucasus, without mentioning the 150,000 Armenians in the Russian armies, about 50,000 Armenian volunteers under Andranik, Nazarbekoff, and others not only fought for four years for the cause of the Entente, but after the breakdown of Russia they were the only forces in the Caucasus to resist the advance of the Turks...."

One of those who answered the Armenian call to arms was Gourgen Yanikian who, as a teenager, joined the Russians to fight the Ottoman government, and who as an elderly man, on January 27, 1973, assassinated two Turkish diplomats in Santa Barbara, California.

1. No logic can reconcile the two positions that Armenian Americans promote. Eminent historian Bernard Lewis, speaking to the Israeli daily Ha�aretz on January 23, 1998, expanded on this notion,

"The Armenians want to benefit from both worlds. On the one hand, they speak with pride of their struggle against Ottoman despotism, while on the other hand, they compare their tragedy to the Jewish Holocaust. I do not accept this. I do not say that the Armenians did not suffer terribly. But I find enough cause for me to contain their attempts to use the Armenian massacres to diminish the worth of the Jewish Holocaust and to relate to it instead as an ethnic dispute." (translation)

2. None of the Ottoman orders commanding the relocation of Armenians, which have been reviewed by historians to date, orders killings. To the contrary, they order Ottoman officials to protect relocated Armenians.

3. Where Ottoman control was weakest Armenian relocatees suffered most. The stories of the time give many examples of columns of hundreds of Armenians guarded by as few as two Ottoman gendarmes. When local Muslims attacked the columns, Armenians were robbed and killed. It must be remembered that these Muslims had themselves suffered greatly at the hands of Armenians and Russians. In the words of U.S. Ambassador Mark Bristol, "While the Dashnaks [Armenian revolutionaries] were in power they did everything in the world to keep the pot boiling by attacking Kurds, Turks and Tartars; [and] by committing outrages against the Moslems �."

Where Ottoman control was strong, Armenians went unharmed. In Istanbul and other major western Anatolian cities, large populations of Armenians remained throughout the war. In these areas Ottoman power was greatest and genocide would have been easiest to carry out. By contrast, during World War II, the Jews of Berlin were killed, their synagogues defiled. The Armenians of Istanbul lived through World War I, their churches open.

C. The Armenian Allegation of Genocide Fails the Minimum Standards of Proof Required by the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

The term "genocide" did not exist prior to 1944. The term was subsequently defined quite specifically by the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention of the Crime of Genocide. This high crime is now recognized by most nations, including the Republic of Turkey.

The standard of proof in establishing the crime of genocide is formidable given the severity of the crime, the opportunity for overlap with other crimes, and the stigma of being charged with or found guilty of the crime. While presenting the Convention for ratification, the Secretary General of the U.N. emphasized that genocide is a crime of "specific intent," requiring conclusive proof that members of a group were targeted simply because they were members of that group. The Secretary General further cautioned that those merely sharing political aims are not protected by the convention.

Under this standard of proof, the Armenian American claim of genocide fails. First, no direct evidence has been discovered demonstrating that any Ottoman official sought the destruction of the Ottoman Armenians as such. Second, Ottoman Armenian Dashnak and Hunchak guerrillas and their civilian accomplices admittedly organized political revolutionary groups and waged war against their own government. Under these circumstances, it was the Ottoman Armenians� violent political alliance with the Russian forces, not their ethnic or religious identity, which rendered them subject to the relocation.

A recent comment on the U.N. position was rendered by, U.N. spokesman Farhan Haq on October 5, 2000 when he confirmed that the U.N. has not approved or endorsed a report labeling the Armenian experience as genocide.

_FACT 5: The British convened the Malta Tribunals to try Ottoman officials for crimes against Armenians. All of the accused were acquitted.

The Peace Treaty of Sevres, which was imposed upon the defeated Ottoman Empire, required the Ottoman government to hand over to the Allied Powers people accused of "massacres." Subsequently, 144 high Ottoman officials were arrested and deported for trial by the British to the island of Malta. The principal informants to the British High Commission in Istanbul leading to the arrests were local Armenians and the Armenian Patriarchate. While the deportees were interned on Malta, the British appointed an Armenian scholar, Mr. Haig Khazarian, to conduct a thorough examination of documentary evidence in the Ottoman, British, and U.S. Archives to substantiate the charges. Access to Ottoman records was unfettered as the British and French occupied and controlled Istanbul at the time. Khazarian�s corps of investigators revealed an utter lack of evidence demonstrating that Ottoman officials either sanctioned or encouraged killings of Armenians.

At the conclusion of the investigation, the British Procurator General determined that it was "improbable that the charges would be capable of proof in a court of law," exonerated and released all 144 detainees -- after two years and four months of detention without trial. No compensation was ever paid to the detainees.

_FACT 6: Despite the verdicts of the Malta Tribunals, Armenian terrorists have engaged in a vigilante war that continues today.

In 1921, a secret Armenian network based in Boston, named Nemesis, took the law into its own hands and hunted down and assassinated former Ottoman Ministers Talaat Pasha and Jemal Pasha as well as other Ottoman officials. Following in Nemesis� footsteps, during the 1970�s and 1980�s, the Armenian terrorist groups, Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA) and Justice Commandos for the Armenian Genocide (JCAG), committed over 230 armed attacks, killing 71 innocent people, including 31 Turkish diplomats, and seriously wounding over 520 people in a campaign of blood revenge.

Most recently, Mourad Topalian, former Chairman of the Armenian National Committee of America, was tried and convicted in federal court in Ohio of terrorist crimes associated with bombings in New York and Los Angles and with the attempted assassination of the Turkish Honorary Consul General in Philadelphia. The Armenian youths whom Topalian directed and who conducted these attacks were recruited from the Armenian Youth Federation and Armenian Revolution Federation in Boston.

_FACT 7: The archives of many nations ought to be carefully and thoughtfully examined before concluding whether genocide occurred.

Armenian Americans make frequent reference to the archives of many nations while carefully avoiding calls for the examination of those archives. They know that no evidence of genocide has been found to date, as was the case in the Malta Tribunals. They also know that the national archives of several nations, including the U.S., speak primarily of the deaths of Armenians because the recorders were only interested in the Armenians, while intentionally omitting reports of Muslim deaths. Take, for example, the 1915 Armenian revolt in Van where at least 60,000 Muslims perished. Though the evidence for this is overwhelming, the official archives of several countries mention only Christian deaths.

Still, Armenian Americans carefully avoid calls for the collection and examination of all records regarding the events in question. Such would include Ottoman records describing the activities of Armenian rebels and the Russian invaders whom they supported, as well as the archives of Germany, Russia, France, Britain, Iran, Syria and the United States. Most importantly, the unedited records of the Armenian Republic in Yerevan, Armenian Revolutionary Federation in Boston, and ASALA in Yerevan, ought to be examined but remain closed. Only those who fear the truth would limit the scope of an investigation.

1. Jews did not demand the dismemberment of the nations in which they had lived. By contrast, the Ottoman Armenians openly agitated for a separate state in lands in which they were numerically inferior. The Hunchak and Dashnak revolutionary organizations, which survive to this day, were formed expressly to agitate against the Ottoman government.

2. Jews did not kill their fellow citizens in the nations in which they had lived. By contrast, the Ottoman Armenians committed massacres against local Muslims.

3. Jews did not openly join the ranks of their countries� enemies during World War II. By contrast, during World War I, Ottoman Armenians openly and with pride committed mass treason, took up arms, traveled to Russia for training, and sported Russian uniforms. Others, non-uniformed irregulars, operated against the Ottoman government from behind the lines.

4. Solemn tribunal at Nuremberg proved the guilt of the perpetrators of the Holocaust and sentences were carried out in accordance with agreed-upon procedures. By contrast, the Malta Tribunals, which were convened by the World War I victors, exonerated those alleged to have been responsible for the maladministration of the relocation policies.

5. Open Armenian-Nazi collaboration is evident in the activities of the 812th Armenian Battalion of the [Nazi] Wehrmacht, commanded by Drastamat Kanayan (a.k.a. "Dro"), and its successor, the Armenian Legion. Anti-Jewish, pro-Nazi propaganda was published widely in the Armenian-language Hairenik daily and the weekly journal, Armenian.

6. Hitler did not refer to the Armenians in plotting the Final Solution; the infamous quote is fraudulent. All sources attribute the alleged quote, "Who remembers the Armenians?" to a November 24, 1945 Times of London article, "Nazi Germany�s Road to War." The article�s unnamed author says Hitler uttered the phrase in an address on August 22, 1939 at Obersalzburg. The Times of London author claims the speech was introduced as evidence during the November 23, 1945 session of the Nuremberg Tribunal. Yet the Nuremberg transcripts do not contain the alleged quote.

In fact, the quote first appeared in a 1942 book by Louis Lochner, the AP�s Berlin bureau chief during World War II. Lochner, like the Times of London author, never disclosed his source. The Nuremberg Tribunal examined and then rejected Lochner�s third-hand version of Hitler�s address and rejected it. Instead, it entered into evidence two official versions of the August 22, 1939 address found in captured German military records. Neither document contains any reference to Armenians, nor in fact do they refer to the Jews. Hitler�s address was an anti-Polish invective, delivered years before he conceived the Final Solution.

7. The depth, breadth, and volume of scholarship on the Holocaust are tremendous. The physical and documentary evidence is vast and proves indisputably the aims, methods, and results of the racist Nazi policies. By contrast, scholarship on the late Ottoman Empire is comparatively scarce. Much research has yet to be completed and many conclusions have yet to be drawn. Non-biased research from that period has thus far revealed tragedies afflicting all sides in a conflict with numerous belligerents. Nothing has yet been uncovered which establishes genocide. In light of the ongoing research and the other distinctions raised above, it would be improper, if not malicious, to equate a desire to challenge Armenian American assertions with Holocaust denial.

� Armenian Atrocities and Terrorism ed. by the Assembly of Turkish American Associations (Assembly of Turkish American Associations, Washington, DC 1997);

� Death and Exile: the Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922 by Justin McCarthy (Darwin Press, Princeton, NJ 1995);

� Muslims and Minorities, The Population of the Ottoman Anatolia and the End of the Empire by Justin McCarthy (New York University Press, New York, 1983).

� Pursuing the Just Cause of Their People by Michael Gunter (Greenwood Press, New York 1986);

� The Armenian File: The Myth of Innocence Exposed by Kamuran G�r�n (K. Rustem & Bro. and Weidenfeld & Nicolson Ltd., London 1985);

� The Armenian Question 1914-1923 by Mim Kemal �ke (K. Rustem & Bro. London 1988);

� The Story Behind Ambassador Morgenthau�s Story by Heath W. Lowry (Isis Press, Istanbul 1990);

� The Tal�t Pasha Telegrams: Historical Fact or Armenian Fiction by Sinasi Orel and S�reyya Yuca (K. Rustem & Bro., London 1986);

� The U.S. Congress and Adolf Hitler on the Armenians, by Heath W. Lowry (Vol. 3, no. 2, Political Communication and Persuasion, 1985); and

� Proceedings of Symposium on Armenians in the Ottoman Empire and Turkey (1912-1926), (Bogazici University Publications, Istanbul, 1984).

During the years of 1919-1920, when victorious British armies occupied the Ottoman capital Istanbul, hundreds of Turkish officials and officers were arrested in Turkey, without any serious inquiry. Then groups of hurriedly selected prisoners were taken from prison by the British military police and deported to the Mediterranean island of Malta. About one hundred forty persons, altogether, were deported to Malta by the British authorities.

Nearly all the deportees were prominent members of the Turkish society at the time. Former Grand Vizier, speaker of Parliament, Sheikh-ul-Islam, Chief of General Staff, State Ministers, Members of Parliament, Senators, Army Commanders, Governors, University Professors, editors, journalists and others were among the deportees of Malta.

They were accused lightly and roughly of three categories of "offences" : (i) failure to comply with Armistice terms, (ii) ill-treatment of British prisoners of war, and (iii) outrages to Armenians both in Turkey and Southern Caucasus.

The last category of "offence", directly related to the Armenian allegations, was particularly interesting, and the British documents on the subject are illuminating. The Malta episode of early 1920's give us, indeed, a true idea about much controversial Armenian deportation and alleged "outrages" in Turkey during World War I.

The British High Commissioner at Istanbul, Admiral de Robeck, was aware that the Turkish deportees accused of Istanbul outrages to Armenians were arrested and deported not on known facts, but merely on the statements of some unreliable informers and anti-Turk intriguers. It was impossible, therefore, to sustain definite charges against the deportees before a Court of Law. Admiral de Robeck reported to Lord Curzon on September 1919, the following:

"The deportees were selected from a list of persons considered dangerous ... The selection was necessarily made very hurriedly, and it was impossible to rely on known facts..."

"It is obvious that in these circumstances it might be very difficult to sustain definite charges against these persons before an allied tribunal. It is not politically desirable that any of them should be sent back to Turkey at present..." (1)

It seems that from the very beginning the British Government doubted much whether these Turkish prisoners at Malta were in fact guilty or not. The British authorities were not unaware that the stories of Armenian massacre were a part of war-time propaganda and were still much exploited against Turkey at conference tables during the armistice period.

But to make propaganda and to prosecute people before a serious tribunal were indeed quite different things. The responsible British authorities were, therefore, hesitating to accuse formally the deportees at Malta. On the contrary, they were contemplating their release as soon as possible. Thus, Mr. Winston S. Churchill, the Secretary of State for War, proposed to the Cabinet on July 19th, 1920, the release of Turkish prisoners at Malta "at the first convenient opportunity". (2)

Upon this, the question of Turkish prisoners at Malta was discussed, for the first time, at the British Cabinet. At the same time the Law Officers of the Crown were consulted on the subject. The Law Officers informed the Cabinet by a memorandum dated 4th August 1920 that they were dealing only with few Turkish deportees accused of ill-treatment of British prisoners of war. No material or evidence ever existed about alleged Armenian massacre. Therefore, the Law Officers of the Crown abstained from accusing anyone of Turkish deportees of such a crime. (3)

On August 4th, 1920, the British Cabinet decided that "The list of the deportees be carefully revised by the Attorney General with a view to selecting the names of those it was proposed to prosecute, so that those against whom no proceedings were contemplated should be released at the first convenient opportunity." (4) And the Attorney General wrote to the Foreign Office that the "British High Commissioner at Istanbul should be asked to prepare the evidence against those interned Turks whom he recommends for prosecution on charge of cruelty to native Christians. " (5)

The new British High Commissioner at Istanbul Sir H. Rumbold replied "that none of allied, associated and neutral Powers had been asked to supply any information, that very few witnesses were available and that Armenian Patriarchate had been the main channel through which information had been obtained. He said: "Under these circumstances the Prosecution will find itself under grave disadvantages." Further he added: "The American government in particular, is doubtless in possession of a large amount of documentary information..." (6) His colleague at the High Commission, Sir Harry Lamb was more precise and wrote:

"There are no dossiers in any legal sense. In many cases we have statements by Armenians of differing values...

To sum up, there was no evidence at all to prove that such a crime as alleged "Armenian massacre" was ever committed in Turkey. Therefore it was impossible to produce any dossier in the legal sense against anyone of Turkish deportees at Malta. And the Law Officer of the Crown and H.M. Attorney General refused to involve themselves with the alleged case of "Armenian massacre" and he also carefully avoided to pronounce the word "massacre" which was so freely used by allied war-time propaganda machine and still uttered by some politicians as well as by few members of the British Foreign Office. "From the political point of view it is very desirable that these people (i.e. Turkish deportees) should be brought to trial" insisted one member of the British Foreign Office. And they decided to ask the assistance of the State Department.

On March 31st, 1921, Lord Curzon telegraphed to Sir A. Gedes, the British Ambassador in Washington, the following:

"There are in hands of His Majesty's Government at Malta a number of Turks arrested for alleged complicity in the Armenian massacre.

"Please ascertain if United States Government are in possession of any evidence that would be of value for purposes of prosecution." (8)

A member of the British Embassy in Washington visited the State Department on July 12th, 1921, and he was permitted to see a selection of reports from American Consuls on the subject of Armenian question. The Embassy returned the following reply:

"I regret to inform Your Lordship that there was nothing therein (in American archives) which could be used as evidence against the Turks who are being detained for trial at Malta. The reports seen... made mention of only two names of the Turkish officials in question and in these case were confined to personal opinions of these 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 at the Department of State expressed the wish that no information supplied by them in this connection should be employed in a 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..., I fear that nothing is to be hoped from addressing any further enquiries to the United States Government in this matter." (9)

It was a disappointing result for some officials of British Foreign Office. One of them, Mr. W.S. Edmonds, minuted: "It never seemed very likely that we should be able to obtain evidence from Washington. We are now waiting for the Attorney General's opinion..."

Some obstinate British officials were still insisting for prosecution of innocent Turkish detainees accused of imaginary "Armenian massacre". In view of lack of evidence in legal sense they decided to use political argument. The Foreign Office wrote to H.M. Procurator General on May 31st, 1921, that:

"From political point of view, it is highly desirable that proceedings should take place against all of these persons... on the other hand, it is equally desirable to avoid initiating any proceedings which might be expected to prove abortive. In these circumstances, His Lordship (Lord Curzon) would be very grateful if the Attorney-General would be so good to favour him with an opinion..." (10)

"...It seems improbable that the charges made against the accused will be capable of legal proof in a Court of Law.

"Until more precise information is available as to the nature of the evidence which will be forthcoming at the trials, the Attorney-General does not feel that he is in a position to express any opinion as to the prospect of success in any of the cases submitted for his consideration." (11)

Upon the receipt of this reply, Mr. W.S. Edmonds minuted again: "From this letter it appears that the changes of obtaining convictions are almost nil... It is regrettable that the Turks have confined as long without charges being formulated against them..." (12)

From now on, the Turkish detainees at Malta were not considered as "offenders" for prosecution, but rather as "hostages" for exchange against British prisoners in Anatolia. Sir H. Rumbold, the High Commissioner in Istanbul, wrote:

"Failing the possibility of obtaining proper evidence against these Turks which would satisfy a British Court of Law, we would seem to be continuing an act of technical injustice in further detaining the Turks in question. In order, therefore, to avoid as far as possible losing face, in this matter, I consider that all the Turks... should be made available for exchange purposes." (13)

And then, all Turkish deportees at Malta, embarked on board HMS "Chrisanremum" and RFA "Montenal" on afternoon of the 25th October, 1921, arrived at Inobolu on October 31st, and landed safely on Turkish soil. All Turkish deportees were released and repatriated without being brought before a Tribunal. On the other hand, all British prisoners in Anatolia who were handed over to their authorities reached Istanbul on November 2nd. The episode of the deportees of Malta thus ended.

In conclusion, one can say that these prominent Turks, accused of Armenian persecution, were arrested and deported without any serious investigation. There was, from the very beginning, a great deal of doubts whether the accused were in fact guilty or not. From political point of view, it was "highly desirable" for the British Government that at least some of these deportees should be brought to trial. The British Foreign Office has left no stone unturned in order to prove that an "Armenian massacre" actually took place in Turkey, and consequently some of these detainees were guilty. But all efforts in this connection ended with a complete failure.

There was no evidence, no witness, no dossier, and no proof. The Armenian Patriarchate in Istanbul furnished nothing serious. The Ottoman capital city Istanbul was under allied occupation and all Ottoman State archives were there easily accessible to the British authorities. The Ottoman government was very docile and cooperative. Yet the British High Commission in Istanbul was unable to forward to London any evidence in legal sense. There was nothing in British archives which could be used as evidence against the Turkish detainees. The American State Department was unable to assist the British Government with evidence against these Turks. It is safe, therefore, to say that the alleged "Armenian massacre" was nothing but an imaginary product of a ruthless war-time propaganda campaign carried out against the Turks.

What actually took place in Turkey during World War I, was not a "massacre" but a displacement of population. The Armenian minority in eastern Turkey revolted against the Ottoman State at a most critical time in modern Turkish history. In April 1915, the Russian armies launched an offensive against Van, in the east, and the Allied troops landed on Gallipoli peninsula, in the west. At that critical moment, Armenian bands were fighting against the Turks, together with invading Russian armies. The Ottoman Government then decided in May 1915 to remove insurgent Armenian minority from war zone to the Syrian province of the Empire. According to Boghos Noubar, the President of Armenian National Delegation at Paris, some 6 to 700.000 people were deported from Anatolia. (14) Thousands of Armenian were perished during those years of war, food shortages, famine and large-scale plague; Turkish casualties in the same period being estimated much more higher.

The Armenian casualties were first misrepresented and distorted by vindictive Armenian nationalist leaders. Then Allied Intelligence services, spread stories of imaginary "massacre", for the sake of their own purposes. The Prime Minister of former Armenian Republic in Transcaucasia, Howhannes Katchaznouni, wrote the following:

"In the Fall of 1914 Armenian volunteer bands organised themselves and fought against the Turks because they could not refrain themselves fighting. This was an inevitable result of a psychology on which the Armenian people nourished itself during an entire generation...

"We had created a dense atmosphere of illusion in our minds. We had implanted our own desire into the minds of others; we had lost our sense of reality and carried away with our dreams. (15)

The so-called "Armenian massacre" was, originally, nothing but the creation of that "dense atmosphere of illusion" in vindictive Armenian minds, then, the same Armenians tried to implement it into the minds of others. But, all political attempts to prove that an Armenian massacre actually took place in Turkey, failed completely in the presence of dignified British jurists. From that respect the Malta episode of early 1920's was indeed illuminating and conclusive.

1 Public Record Office, London, FO 371/4174/136069 : De Rebeck to Lord Curzon, No. 1722/R/1315, of 21.9.1919

2 PRO-FO 371/5090 and C.P. 1649: Memorandum by the S.of S. For War on Pasition of Turkish prisoners interned at Malta, dated 19.7.1920

3 PRO-FO 371/5090/E.9934 (C.P.1770): Memorandum by Law Afficers of the Corwn dated 4th August 1920 and signed by Gordon Hewart and Ernest M.Pollock.

6 PRO-FO 371/6500/E.3557: Sir H.Rumbold to Lord Curzon, No. 277 of 16th March, 1921

7 PRO-FO 371/6500/E.3554: Inclosure, minutes by Sir H.Lamb, dossier Veli Nedjdet

9 PRO-FO 371/6504/E.8515: Craigie, British Charge d' Afaires at Washington, to lord Curzon, No.722 of July 13, 1921

10 PRO-FO 371/6502/E.5845: Lancelot Oliphant (Foreign Ofice) to Mr. Woods (Procurator-General's Department), May 31st, 1921

11 PRO-FO 371/6504/E.8745: Procurator-General's Department to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, 29.7.1921

14 Archives des Affaires Etrangeres de France, Serie levant 1918-1929, Sous-Serie Armenie, Vol. 2, folio 47: Boghos Noubar a M. Gout, MAE, lettfre datee du 11 Decembre 1918.

15 Hovhannes Katchaznouni, The Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnagtzoutiun) Has Nothing to do Any More, New York: 1955, pp. 5-7


Islamic Party of Britain
info@islamicparty.com
	Submit A Question \| Retrieve An Answer

Further Reading

Satanic Voices Ancient and Modern - Chapter : Carved Turkey by David Musa Pidcock

Hitler's Jewish Soldiers: The Untold Story of Nazi Racial Laws and Men of Jewish Descent in the German Military by Bryan Mark Rigg