For many years in American media, the Indian
was portrayed as the savage "bad guy." Certainly, native Americans
hardly had anyone speaking on their behalf, and it was natural for the public
to unquestioningly accept a one-sided version of events. Finally, as the
indisputable truth became reported more and more (especially following
the1960s publication of Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee), the real
version of this historical conflict became widely accepted. Ironically, the
formerly accepted "good guy" side was revealed to have been the
actual dishonorable ones (having broken every treaty) and the ones
significantly engaged in heartless slaughters, coupled with, at times,
campaigns of systematic extermination.
For nearly a century, the Western World has wholeheartedly accepted that there
has been an attempt by the Ottoman Turks to systematically destroy the
Armenian people, comparable to what the Nazis committed upon the Jews during
World War II. Many Armenians who have settled in America, Europe and Australia
(along with other parts of the world, known as "The Armenian
Diaspora") have clung to the tragic events of so long ago as a form of
ethnic identity, and have considered it their duty to perpetuate this myth,
with little regard for facts... at the same time breeding hatred among their
young. As descendants of the merchant class from the Ottoman Empire, Armenians
have been successful in acquiring the wealth and power to make their voices
heard... and they have made good use of the "Christian" connection
to gain the sympathies of Westerners who share their religion and prejudices.
Turks characteristically shun propaganda, and have chosen not to dwell on the
tragedies of the past, forging ahead to build upon brotherhood — not hate.
This is why the horrifying massacres committed upon the Turks, Kurds and other
Ottoman Muslims by Armenians have seldom been heard. When such reports are
heard, Westerners can be callously dismissive... Turkish lives are apparently
as meaningless to them as Indian lives were to most early Americans.
(The following is an excerpt from Dr. Leon Picon, reviewing the book,
"THE ARMENIAN FILE"):
How successfully the Turks could have warded off the
resultant stigma through counter-propaganda will never be known. But it is
certain that in 1922 Sultan Mohammed Vl put it quite succinctly and pointedly,
when he told the American writer E. Alexander Powell:
“If we sent one, your newspapers and periodicals would not publish an
article written by a Turk, if they published it, your people would not read
it, if they read it, they would not believe it. Even if we sent a qualified
person to America, to convey to you in your language, the Turkish point of
view, would he find an impartial audience?” [Gurun, File, p. 37]
It's amazing that whenever the "Armenian Genocide" is referred to in
Western media, journalists seem to fall all over themselves in presenting the
perspective totally from the Armenian propaganda machinery. Whenever there is
an attempt to present "the other side," the passage is usually
preceded by "The Turkish Government claims..." Keeping
in mind we all know how dishonest spokespeople from any government can be.
(And reinforcing the erroneous view that only the Turkish Government objects
to the Armenian version of history.)
lie travels round the world while Truth is putting on her boots" (Used by C.H. Sturgeon, famed English preacher
of the 19th century)
No person of Turkish heritage would accept what the Turkish
Government has to say about this issue, as the final word. Just like no person of Armenian
heritage should care about what the Armenian side has to say. What every person needs to
do is look at the facts. If there were REAL proof of government- sponsored evil
planned against the Armenians, a people who peacefully lived with and prospered beside the
Turks for over five centuries, it would be Turks crying out against such horrors before
most everyone else... one's humanity and integrity should ideally supersede loyalty to
one's ethnic tribe.
What Dr. Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda, swore by is unfortunately very
true: If you tell a lie... especially a big lie... enough times, people will believe it.
The often told "Armenian Genocide" tale... a tale told hardly with any
opposition in nations sympathetic to the "Christian" Armenians... has been so
ingrained within people's belief systems that any attempt to shed light on the actual
truth is often violently rejected. Why, everyone knows those Turks were bloodthirsty
a lie twenty-four hours start, and it will take a hundred years to overtake
it." (C.F. Dixon-Johnson,
British author of the 1916 book, "The Armenians," appalled over the
deceitful practices of his book's subject.)
THE LEGEND BECOMES FACT, PRINT THE LEGEND." (From "The Man Who
Shot Liberty Valance,"
as pointed out in Robert Wuhl's comedic history TV show.)
In other words, the "Armenian Genocide" myth has now been so drilled
into our heads, even intellectuals are brainwashed, unable to summon critical
thought. The genocide legend must now be sustained, and this legend keeps
This web site will present evidence — mostly from
Western sources (not easy to supply, as few Westerners cared about seeking out the
truth back then... a situation which has barely improved with the passage of the
years) — in as impartial a way as possible*, so that visitors can make up their
own minds. (Assuming, of course, that the visitor is not beyond hope and not
totally brainwashed, like most genocide-obsessed Armenians and their supporters...
everything is a "lie" with them, no matter what the source.) Was there
an Armenian Genocide? None of us who are rational and reasonable can say with
absolute certainty. However, all we can rely on are cold, hard FACTS. Certainly,
Armenians were killed as a result of massacres... often by their Muslim neighbors,
in reprisal for the murderous acts committed by the Armenians (when they sided
with the Russian enemy in hopes of carving out their own independence); but
anybody who calls acts of massacres a "genocide" doesn't know the
meaning of the word. (At least the way most of us perceive the meaning, as with
what Hitler did to the Jews; the legal definition of genocide is essentially
meaningless, and can be applied to almost any conflict.) If a genocide is how you
like to describe what happened to the Armenians, then you need to refer to what
American soldiers committed in My Lai as a "genocide."
Ironically, if anyone acted
genocidally, with the intention of systematically wiping out people because
of their ethnic or religious identity, it was the people who are traditionally
accepted as the victims of this conflict. Another irony is that while Armenians have
been doing their utmost to portray Turks as Nazis (in an effort to equate themselves
with Holocaust victims, the one group best known to have fallen prey to genocide),
Turks did their best to save Jews during World War II... while European Armenians
actively supported the Nazi cause.
Since the Turkish perspective is attempting to undo nearly ninety years (and well
beyond) of the unopposed one-sided view that has permeated Western minds, also
having to contend with charges of "revisionism" and "denial"...
defensiveness unfairly becomes part of the picture. While the aim of this site is to
present mostly impartial views to get people to question what they have unthinkingly
accepted, what this entails is that the Turks are put in the uncomfortable position
of having to prove a negative — a difficult, if not impossible task... on the
order of attempting to prove God does not exist. The issues are whether there was a
state directed policy of extermination (that is, genocide... with the provision that
there must be intent — backed up by tangible, no-buts-about-it evidence —
as defined by the 1948 United Nations rule... and also whether Armenians constituted
a political group, unprotected by another article from the U.N. Convention on
Genocide)... and whether the Armenians and other minorities were the sole victims of
one-sided and unreliable information (about any people) after a long period of
unchallenged time, would create hostility and hatred that would not be easily
Hamlin, co-founder of the American missionary college in Istanbul [Robert
College], opining on anti-Turkish propaganda, late 19th-Century.)
If anyone is familiar with the 1957 movie "Twelve
Angry Men" (based on a television play, starring Henry Fonda and Lee J. Cobb...
later remade with Jack Lemmon and George C. Scott)... you might remember how eleven jurors
accepted at the outset the "obvious" guilt of the young man on trial,
perpetuated by the race of the accused. The message of the film was that things are not
always what they seem... and the Henry Fonda character, through logic and facts, turned
around the opinions of each of his co-jurors. Quite a task lay before him, since the other
co-jurors were motivated by other factors instead of the pertinent one at hand (i.e.,
Justice), but ultimately truth prevailed... as will inevitably occur one day with the
Armenian "genocide," once people put their prejudices aside, and look at the
validity of the evidence offered on both sides. We are now in the first fifteen minutes of
the movie, and the Turks are in the Henry Fonda role... and the Armenians are in the Lee
J. Cobb role. (The one difference in the way our play will work out is that most Armenians
will never accept that there was no genocide... as the genocide has become too much a
reason for the Armenians' existence, and facts become irrelevant, or conveniently
Innocent until proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt should be the legal principle at work
here, and ideally it should not be up to the Turks to prove that they did not commit
genocide but for Armenians and their Turk-hating supporters to prove that the Turks did.
This "trial" has already historically taken place, as you will soon see... and
the resulting "acquittal" hasn't made any difference in the eyes of those who
will condemn the Turks, regardless of the facts.
(*Regarding impartiality: this refers to most of the
supporting documents presented on this site, particularly those from Western sources...
since anyone with a Western background can safely be assumed not to have been raised with
a love for Turks; after all, does the Western society exist that favors a glowing image of
Turkey? My own writings [I'm Holdwater, by the way;
glad to meet you] are often not impartially written... however, if you can prove to me
that there definitely was an Armenian genocide, you would find me changing my tune pretty
fast. Can you say the same about yourself, if you begin to be convinced what you have been
led to believe all this time has mainly been a lie?)
like it always does, the truth will emerge. And when it does, this house of
cards, built of deceit, will fall." US Senator Robert Byrd, Senate Floor Remarks
- May 21, 2003
BEFORE YOU GO ON,
at your own speed...
... I'd like you to visit the following three
pages. First, take a look at a brief background as to what went on, in an American professor's
words... followed by an important scenario,
the link for which is also provided at the bottom of the "background"
page. Last, you'll be guided to what should be the often ignored end-all argument.
without hearing both sides is unjust and un-American"
Arthur Tremaine Chester, "Angora and the
Turks," The New York Times Current History, Feb.1923
Armenophile publicity 'exaggerated, misconstructed, and abusive,' [Admiral] Bristol
in early 1920 told [Rev.] Barton... that it was contrary to the American sense
of fair play to kick a man when he was down and give him a chance to defend
Joseph L. Grabill, "PROTESTANT DIPLOMACY AND THE
NEAR EAST: Missionary influence on American policy, 1810-1927," 1971, p. 264
to the papers by their correspondents in Turkey is biased against the Turks. This
implies an injustice against which even a criminal on trial is protected."
Gordon Bennett, publisher, The New
York Herald, circa 1915
worthy of the name would condemn a prisoner on the evidence of the prosecution alone,
without first hearing the evidence for the defence."
C.F. Dixon-Johnson, British author, from
his 1916 book, "The Armenians."
"There is no
crime without evidence. A genocide cannot be written about in the absence of factual
Henry R. Huttenbach, history professor who
appears to support the Armenian viewpoint exclusively, as do... curiously... nearly
all so-called "genocide scholars"; The Genocide Forum, 1996, No. 9
"It is... time
that Americans ceased to be deceived by (Armenian) propaganda in behalf of policies
which are... nauseating..."
John Dewey, Columbia
University professor, "The Turkish Tragedy," The
New Republic, Nov. 1928
Edward R. Murrow, journalist with integrity, from his "See
It Now" CBS-TV broadcast of March 9, 1954, commenting on the "takeover"
of the USA by the witch-hunting Senator Joseph McCarthy... in words that could easily
defend today's "genocide deniers":
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is
not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We ... are not
descended from fearful men— not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and
to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular.
In what may be applied to the wide and mindless acceptance of the "Armenian
Genocide," this great thinker also said ("This I Believe," 1951):
Except for those who think in terms of pious platitudes or dogma or narrow prejudice...
people don’t speak their beliefs easily, or publicly.
"Unfortunately, if something is shouted loud enough, there are
always those who believe it..." (ADDENDUM:
Two thought-provoking and paraphrased quotes from the movie, Spider-Man 3, the
first from Aunt May, who could have been addressing the Armenians: "Uncle Ben
wouldn't want us to live for one second with revenge on our hands to poison us and turn us
into something ugly." Second, from Peter Parker, who could have been addressing
the mindless many who accept pro-Armenian claims at face value: "It's the
choices that make us who we are, and we can always choose to do what's right.")
Comments showcasing genocide advocates' disrespect toward the science
of objective history and the necessity for "revisionism" as better facts come
along are expressed on the nose with this excerpt from the Sept. 18, 2006 NEWSWEEK
Magazine's letters section, written by Michael Manhart:
"...People become enraged when science makes a decision or a discovery that they
don't like. They don't like the change in Pluto's status. They don't like evolution. They
don't like global warming. But the fact is that science is not about
giving us answers we like or want. I sincerely hope someday we can abandon this
childish and ignorant attitude toward science."
Another NEWSWEEK letter-writer
(Ray Sachs, Sept. 25, 2006) could be talking about the blind dogma and harmful tactics of
genocide-believers, versus one such as I who would change his mind if the factual proof
"I have no problem with any religion as long as it remains
about belief rather than absolute certainty. Belief is compatible with respect and
tolerance for other beliefs. Certainty is an arrogance that leads to
intolerance, disrespect and, all too often, terror and war."
A Navigation tip:
"Cumulative," in the column at left (under "Sections"), features
an overall index of all the pages on the site.