The Lie Called
The Armenian Genocide
People Who Create A Culture Devoted To Working Your Pity If Not Calling Forth Your Hate (To Match Theirs)
It is completely about their seething hatred of Turks and everything Turkish, and their attempts to get the world to despise Turks with the same raging, blind, violent and purposeless hatred.
Do reasonable people really want to feed the hate of others?
The Armenian-American lobby has succeeded in making one step in its incessant
campaign of hate against Turks: on 4 March 2010 in Washington, D.C., it was
able to get a United States House committee, on a 23-22 vote, to resolve to make
a statement that Armenians were subjected to a
genocide from the years
1915-1923, a resolution which makes outright and certainly outrageous statements
to dip the hands of every living Turk—not just the dead ones—as a
perpetrator of the
The hate lobby of Armenians has also succeeded in getting other governments
(legislative bodies) in other nations (France, recently Sweden) to pass
resolutions expressing contempt and enmity for Turks (less so about the
genocide) because these nations have harbored an anti-Turkish bigotry for
generations. The prime minister of Sweden repudiated the Swedish parliament for
involving itself in matters that did not belong to it.
The Armenians have been trying seemingly for eons to compare their losses in a rebellion they started against the Ottoman Empire to the Jewish Holocaust, of all things.
But watch the Armenians who are particularly hot-blooded about having their
Remembrance Day (which is supposed to fall on 24 April). You will see
that it is not really about remembering the dead from that era. It is really
about hating the Turks. And not just the Turks living a century ago, but those
alive today who are their descendants. Those who are blameless completely in
For these particularly hate-filled Armenians however, there is a debt that has to be paid. And this debt is all about perpetuating another genocide, this time, one against the Turks.
I will get into the evidence against the preposterousness of the genocide below. But before I do, look carefully at the behavior of the Armenians who insist to the point of committing violence against your person should you not be persuaded, that you accept as uncontestable fact, as an a priori premise, that:
As for myself, I will not deny that massive numbers of people died. The counts were very likely in the hundreds of thousands, and probably in the millions.
But it was not just Armenians who died. Large numbers of Turks, Kurds, Arabs—as well as Armenians—died in that period. The deaths had numerous causes:
crimes of war,
crimes against humanity.The numbers killed, from a few to thousands to millions, do not seem to matter. It is a crime made shocking because it is done based on factors that the victims cannot control, because the factors involve the victims being born with certain characteristics.
All of these beliefs about what happened can be brought before an international forum that makes an effort at settling the issue, at least for those who are not dead-set against having their minds changed.
Unfortunately, the sides involved in this contentious matter are populated by those who have very little interest in changing their minds and a great big interest in maintaining whatever fiction there is, and for some, it is a lie that probably even earns them a living.
It is preferable to begin this issue-deciding part of the discussion by working with a definition of the word genocide from a respected lexicon:
the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural
——Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2009
While certainly concise, it arguably allows for too much ambiguity and the opportunity to call a genocide what is in fact not a genocide.
The term genocide was first used in this century and has been used with solemn significance to describe the truly atrocious systematic intention and implementation of a policy to kill all those who were Jewish or suspected of Jewish descent. This policy was indicated in written documents and orderly procedures set up to carry it out. There was no doubt and no question about what transpired.
Jews were not killed because of their politics. They were not killed because they opposed the state (Hitler) and so to topple that state.
They were killed just or merely because they were Jews.
For those who plotted and planned the destruction of the Jews, being a Jew was not a temporary condition. One could not pay a sum to get the destroyers to look the other way, a ransom to save one's self.
Human passion was not a factor in the mass destruction. The Nazis did not lash
out from rage or anger of the moment. They possessed a psychopathology formed
from the festering of a hatred of themselves, perhaps first and foremost, and a
hatred formed from centuries of resentment and outrage at the
murder of Jesus
Christ that is usually described as anti-Semitism. It is not that Hitler
and his thuggish comrades were motivated by a strong sense of Christianity that
involved hatred of those who were not Christians. It is just that the
resentment and outrage of Germans who had not fully realized their imperial
destiny was taken out on a convenient object of hate, the Jews.
The essential characteristics for a genocide must therefore be:
One characteristic not at all mentioned here is numbers. Should a genocide include the actual killing of large number, even a total or near-total decimation of all the members that make up the class/race of humans considered the target of genocide? That too is debatable. But what is not debatable are the listed characteristics above.
With all these essential characteristics now described, can anyone come credibly close to claiming that the Ottoman Empire truly planned the genocide of Armenians, a plan that had they certainly drawn up, they would have certainly had the means and the ability to carry out, thus leaving not a single Armenian in the diaspora to whine today about this so-called genocide?
First consider who in this debate has the burden of proof. Since a monstrous crime—a crime against humanity, genocide—is being alleged, it is proper to demand that those who make the accusation be the ones to prove their affirmative claims. This is the standard by which all alleged crimes are held, that the defendant is presumed innocent until the prosecution persuades us, the jurors, of guilt. It is also an abiding fundamental of propositional logic and critical reasoning, as well as a prinicple of debate.
Lay aside for the moment the preposterous assertion that what happened to the Armenians is a genocide. And see their attempt to visit the sins of the fathers upon the sons. Listen to some of the Armenians say that all they want is a formal apology from the Turkish government, a government that in fact did not exist nor was even involved the development of a policy of the systematic killing of Armenians. But understand that the reality that what drives these Armenians is a contemptible, anti-Turkish bigotry, plain and simple. Ask these Armenians if they would like to see all Turks drop dead, choking on the air they breathe and suffering horrible pain before death, and you will see tears of happiness at such thoughts well up in their eyes. Now who is for genocide?
But returning to the question of the so-called genocide, history is clear about what the Armenians did at this time. The Ottoman Empire was waning at this time (the anti-Turkish First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill famously described it as the “sick man of Europe”). The Russian Empire saw an opportunity to expand its influence and territory, and pursued an intrigue by inciting Armenian rebels in the eastern part of the Ottoman Empire. The Armenian rebels engaged in complete and barbaric slaughter of every inhabitant of many Turkish villages and towns. The sultan got word of what was happening in Istanbul, and dispatched his soldiers to regain control of the peace in the eastern provinces, probably ordering the rebels guilty of crimes to be killed, and the rest of the populace pacified. This pacification essentially involved relocation of Armenian communities away from the eastern frontier to other parts of the Ottoman Empire where lawful control was more possible.
Unfortunately, many of these relocation efforts were undertaken during the cold winter months, and both Armenian refugees and Turkish soldiers died of exposure. In addition, there were massive influenza global pandemics at the time, and there were no such things as antibiotics or vaccinations againt bacterial or viral diseases. Thus most of the deaths did not come at the hands of humans, but of nature.
Certainly there were retaliatory attacks by Ottoman soldiers against Armenian towns whose populations had engaged in rebellion and whose people had committed atrocities against Turkish villages.
Was it right and legal?
Clearly these acts are outright mass murder, crimes of wars or of humanity by representatives of the state, Ottoman imperial soldiers, against unarmed Armenian civilians. Unfortunately, at the time, there was no such thing as the Geneva Conventions or international law, and so there were no rules of war. Barbarity, a seeming natural condition of war, was practiced by all, Armenian and Turk alike.
But as awful as outright mass murder—massacres—are, they do not rise to the level of genocide. If that were so, human history is filled with genocides wherever you turn and wherever you look. The word genocide begins to have its value entirely cheapened (de-valued) from the rampant usage of it in this sense.
As to the events of that era (the World War I era, 1915), now the Armenians are trying to have it both ways. They attempted to start a civil war, and they themselves were fully intent on killing as many Turks as they could, perhaps even all of them. But the Turks—civilians, not just Ottoman soldiers—proved to be better fighters by far, and managed to inflict more losses on the Armenians, intentional and otherwise. Now try to imagine indignant Germans attempting to say that the Americans and Allied forces tried to inflict a genocide on the Germans, say through the Dresden bombings. And you point out to these indignant Germans what took place in the London bombings, but they ignore what you say and persist in declaring a genocide. This is what is happening here.
We do not accuse those of genocide or label as genocidal monsters those who are attacked and who then respond with efficient vengeance in killing their attackers. This is not the intention or purpose of focusing the consciousness of humanity today on what is unacceptable, inhumane behavior.
If we are going to scour the historical record for genocide, our first and next step should be to give formal notice to the Italians—who probably have little connection with the Romans but it matters little since we are on a campaign of mindless hate anyway—that the Roman Empire is guilty of countless genocides (but we'll find a way to count them anyway), and we will demand that the Italian government cry and beg forgiveness from all individuals and groups who can show proof—or even manage to falsify—a grievance.
The Armenians are making use of the obscurity and the fog of a war they started nearly a century ago, and they insist not only on your sympathy, but on your hatred of Turks. Why would any reasonable person give in to this pathologically disturbed thinking?
The man credited with coining the word
genocide is Raphael Lemkin,
a Jew of Russian/Polish descent. In the favor of the Armenians, there is
abundant evidence that Lemkin created the word to describe what happened
to the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire during World War I. While there is
no dispute about the appropriateness of the definition of genocide
that Lemkin developed, the question remains about whether Lemkin truly
understood the events at that time in the Ottoman Empire? Is the word genocide
truly descriptive what happened? Why was Lemkin fully convinced that
the crime against humanity known as genocide properly describes what happened?
One must accept that the phrase
Armenian Genocide is thus appropriate
to describe these events if one accepts that Lemkin's understanding of what
happened is accurate and properly descriptive (certainly Lemkin was convinced).
But there are many historians who have researched this issue and remain doubtful that Lemkin's perception of events is far from the final word.
For the moment, it will be sufficient to quote Guenter Lewy of the University of Massachusetts, who was invited to post the following at the BBC World News web site featuring a debate for and against the charge of genocide:
According to the Genocide Convention of 1948, intent is a necessary condition of genocide—intent to destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
Hence the crucial question in this controversy is not the huge loss of life experienced by Ottoman Armenians during World War I, in and of itself, but rather whether the Young Turk regime intentionally sought the deaths that we know to have occurred.
The relocation of most Armenians to the interior of the Ottoman Empire was most likely to have been a badly mismanaged wartime security measure, rather than a premeditated programme of extermination and hence genocide.
Many aspects of the relocation support this position:
- The large Armenian communities of Constantinople, Smyrna and Aleppo were not relocated and survived the war largely intact. These exemptions are analogous to Hitler failing to include the Jews of Berlin, Cologne and Munich in the Final Solution.
- The relocation experienced much variation that depended on geography and the attitude of local officials. In many places Protestant and Catholic Armenians as well as needed artisans were exempted. The same goes for the large number of Armenians who often were allowed, or even forced, to convert. In the absence of a large Kurdish population, no massacres took place in Cilicia, and a substantial part of the exiles sent to Southern Syria and Palestine survived.
Well-known scholars of Ottoman history, such as Bernard Lewis and Andrew Mango, question the appropriateness of the genocide label.
It is time to acknowledge that we are dealing with a genuine historical controversy that should be resolved by scholars rather than politicians.
Bruce Fein has given a detailed account about how proponents of the Armenian genocide tale have exaggerated the numbers allegedly killed to the level where they are now obviously ludicrous. He describes clearly that Armenians at the time contradicted each other on the numbers, with a low of 280,000 to a high of 750,000 from among 1.26 to 1.6 million total Armenians. Mr. Fein points out that the Armenian leader of the Paris Peace Conference so much as admitted that the Armenians who died were casualties of a war helping the Allies to defeat the Turks; they were thus combatants for a large number (certainly not all) of the deaths. They were certainly not neutral parties in the World War I conflict, each and everyone one of them. He also describes the bigoted hatred of Turks by an American ambassador, and provides the evidence of a conspiracy to make the Turks look like monsters. The motivation? To cut out a huge part of the hide of the remnants of the Ottoman Empire for an Armenian nation. The Kurds wanted to do as much back then and still lead a rebellion to carve up the Turkish republic to this day.
It is absolutely proper to point out the outrageousness and shamelessness of
those who will stop at nothing and are capable of everything
in forcing those to submit to their falsified history , their view of what happened. The slightest deviation from
this zealous orthodoxy, the slightest doubt about a single word from the text
which allows no debate, will invite a dismissive
labeling. As such there will be an effort to attack the so-called denier, to
insult his intelligence, his family, and even his sanity.
The most vociferous supporters of the genocide claim take no prisoners
and tolerate absolutely no discussion. It is either the case of accepting the
received word or being shouted down and pushed around by a bloodthirsty mob who
has no intention of debating the issue: they take their position as a settled
issue. In a debate of the matter, their first tactic is to portray their
opponent as someone exactly like the
kooks who claim that the Jewish
Holocaust by the Nazis was a complete fabrication and that the photos and films
documenting the bodies in the concentration camps were a well-designed
conspiracy. They make no efforts to substantiate the claim in the debate: it
is only about attacking the character, individual, family and sanity of the
Many of the genocide proponents are violent fanatics. Turkish officials in the Unites States, usually in Armenian-populated California, have been assassinated by completely insane Armenians. For these Armenians in the diaspora, just to be Turkish is to be guilty of the genocide. Mere disagreement with any part of the fantasy that Armenians have created regarding the events of that era is sufficient to invite threats of physical harm. There is absolutely no tolerance whatsoever from these fanatics, who can be counted in larger numbers than one might believe.
It is a fundamental of personal character that, if a person is caught in a lie, how much of what that person said before can really be the truth?
And so it is for the proponents of the genocide claim.
The maintainers of the
official web site of the
Armenian Genocide have prepared their own elaborate lie
about the founder of the Turkish Republic, directly accusing him of being part
of the plan of genocide which was generally attributed to the Young Turks
(Enver, Talat, and Cemal). Here is the truly laughable text:
With this exodus [of Armenians inhabiting the Izmir region] from the mainland [of Turkey], Mustafa Kemal completed what Talaat (sic) and Enver had started in 1915, the eradication of the Armenian population of Anatolia and the termination of Armenian political aspirations in the Caucasus.
Historians find the implication, if not explication, so outrageous and credible historian would never dignify the assertion that Ataturk himself was intent on the genocide of Armenians. Never mind that there were still hundreds of thousands of Armenians alive, well, and entirely unmolested in many parts of Anatolia and in Thrace. The important thing here is the that the lie needs to be told: let the deniers be the ones to make the huge efforts to wipe away the smear.
It should be noted as well that this site is so paranoid about those who wish to debate its false assertions and outright lies that it actually attempts to stop opponents from quoting its words in a debate! Look at this web site's copyright page and its completely unsupportable attempt to discourage opponents from using the fair use provisions of copyright law. Copyright laws do not protect individuals or organizations from having their own words used against them in a debate! That is fundamentally clear.
An even more revealing look at just how paranoid and debate-averse these web site creators is their utterly hilarious and obtuse attempt to prevent readers of the web site from selecting and copying bits of text in order to perform follow-up word and phrase searches on an engine like Google. Try to click the right mouse button and they attempt to run a script that locks out the copying-and-pasting. Of course, such an attempt to block this is easily overcome, but their attempt to do so just reveals how low the character is of these proponents of the genocide claim.
Other web sites also assert that the Turkish Republic founder Atatürk was behind the genocide, a full and active participant.
It is absolutely important to bear in mind that this is not at all about a search for the truth.
It is all about the present-day hatred of one ethnic group, Armenians, for another, Turks. It is that simple.
Suppose a man is a good friend of the president and he wants a plum
ambassadorship in some country that has fascinated him. Instead he gets chosen
to be ambassador to, say, Zimbabwe, formerly Rhodesia. (Oh, and did I mention
that the president in question is an unapologetic bigot and racist who believes
blacks are subhuman?) Whereas Rhodesia had been run by whites, now Zimbabwe is
run by blacks. And the blacks seem to be killing the whites or otherwise trying
to run them out of the country which is the land of their birth. The ambassador
comes to the country, employs only some of the whites of the country, and then
goes on to call the black leaders and citizens of that country as
Well the ambassador described above was not appointed to Zimbabwe nor Rhodesia, as neither existed in his time. Instead he was appointed to be the ambassador to the Ottoman Empire. He was appointed to that position by Woodrow Wilson, who despite his belief in world peace, was a southerner who believed that blacks were not in anyway equal to whites nor could be in any characteristic. Yes, Woodrow Wilson was a racist and bigot . And the ambassador Wilson appointed to the Ottoman Empire was Henry Morgenthau, a Jew who we are told had no reason to have any pre-judged ideas (yes, prejudice) about any person or ethnic group in the Ottoman Empire.
Or did he? The movement called Zionism was already quite active. The weakening Ottoman Empire controlled the real estate which covered the land that Jews, Christians, and Muslims all called their sacred holy lands given to them by the God of Abraham. Certainly the Ottoman Turks would have been opposed to giving up any of their territory to Jewish nationalists, and so the Turks basically were a roadblock for a new Jewish homeland.
Aside from that, Morgenthau proceeded to come to Istanbul (which many persisted in calling Constantinople despite Turkish possession of the city for half a millenium) and hire Armenians instead of Turks. In an autobiographical work—said to be written in whole or in part by Armenian secretaries—Morgenthau is condemned by his own words for referring to Turks in the most racist language ever used by a rank bigot.
Morgenthau was said not to be a Zionist, which is not the same as saying he was opposed to Zionism, but that he just did not think much of the goal of its membership in establishing a special Jewish homeland. In 1917, after he had left his post as ambassador to the Empire, he led a group who were composed of virulently pro-Zionist Jews on a voyage to persuade the Sultan to not engage in hostilities against the United States even though the U.S. had joined the Allied Powers and had declared war on two members of the Central Powers, the German and Austro-Hungarian Empires, to which the Ottoman Empire belonged. That group with Morgenthau also had the goal of asking the Sultan to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine, under the control of the Ottomans.
Why is Morgenthau at all important here? What is the point of mentioning the name of him?
Because genocide proponents regularly trot out Morgenthau's name as someone
witnessed the genocide first-hand and who could speak credibly about
the brutality of Turks.
But what credibility does a man have who, in all honesty, had already decided
that Turks were
knuckle-dragging savages well before he even supposedly
was an eyewitness to genocide?
The government of Germany punishes—wrongly!—any individual who dares to doubt that the Holocaust by the Nazis happened, or who in any way expresses praise or admiration for significant leaders of the Nazi regime.
This is the criminalization of thought and of speech, and it is entirely wrong. No matter how repugnant and contemptible the thoughts and words are of an individual, these do no true physical harm to others. Those whose psychological compositions are sensitive to such words need to adjust those sensitivities, to harden or toughen themselves to all the potential cruelties of the world out there. If the world were to try to accommodate the most sensitive of individuals among us to thoughts and words that might offend them, not a single thought could come to mind, nor a single word ever uttered by an indiviual. Everyone must learn to live with each other's differences, no matter how extreme and no matter how radical.
In many ways, the Europeans are advanced. But in many other ways, they think and function like small children.
Of course the proponents of the Armenian genocide claim have
used the laws of certain countries against individuals who
have dared to question or debate the major issue of whether genocide
occurred. A Swiss court ludicrously found a Turkish politician guilty of
racial discrimination for asserting there was no genocide. Another Swiss
court found three other Turks guilty of the same charge and given a fine of
several thousand dollars. American historian Bernard Lewis said in 1993 that the
massacres did not constitute genocide, and a French court in 1995 fined Lewis
one franc and ordered that he pay the costs to publish the judgment of the court
in the newspaper Le Monde. The court attempted to dismiss Lewis'
authorative knowledge on the subject.
This is precisely how proponents of the genocide claim want to frame the debate. Basically:
If these are the tactics of individuals who have taken a side on an issue, such as the proponents of the genocide claim, can individuals possessed with any reason truly stand with these proponents in support of the belief that they would just as soon ram down your throat?
The Turks should not be so glum that the United States has had the utter, unmitigating gall to talk about them badly now.
It is now time to cast stones at the United States, and you better get plenty of rocks.
The United States government stands guilty of many crimes: crimes against humanity (the Native Americans), crimes of war (the Dresden and Tokyo bombings), and crimes against the peace (the 2003 invasion of Iraq being just the most recent criminal act).
It would be okay if the United States had in any way atoned for these criminal acts, but it has not even admitted to these acts as crimes, let alone regretted or apologized for them. It was only recently that the United States apologized to its own citizens for penning them up in concentration camps, confiscating their property, and denying them compensation for loss of prosperity, giving what few survivors there were a token, absolutely meaningless sum. The long-dead ancestors of slaves were given a pat on the back with their freedom.
There are plenty of outrages for Turks and many other nations to condemn for all the generations of white European-Americans and what they have done. And the United States has proved that we can use the standards of a later era to judge the peoples and nations of an earlier era.
So go to it!
Many members of the diaspora argue that tens of thousands of Turks have come out in support of the claim that a genocide was perpetrated against the Turks.
Before accepting these arguments from the genocide proponents, make sure of or consider the following:
There are many issues that are so hotly contested that no single person, alive or dead, can present himself or be presented as the final authority on the truth(s) of the issue.
In such cases, the reader or the individual in pursuit of the truth must hear both sides put forth their cases, letting them present their evidence, and then the reader is left to be the judge.
One web site  appears to offer a balance of both the pro and con of the genocide debate (although the web site operator has himself drawn a conclusion, and keeps a separate debate area), and the reader is directed to go there and ensure that he gets a good balance of the literature.
At any rate, you the reader, in your relentless pursuit of the truth, should go to web site that are virulently for or against the proposition that the Ottoman Empire perpetrated a genocide, read both sites, and then come the best judgment you can on the matter. Good luck.