Turkish Forum » ASALA

Turkish Kiss to Sarkozy and Valerie

Tolga Çakır — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 13:12:18 +0000

Alain Juppe, the foreign minister of France, urged Türkiye “not to overreact” but Ankara was naturally furious and immediately recalled its ambassador, announced a raft of sanctions and promised they were the first on an escalating list of measures.

Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan stated France ‘burned Algerians in ovens’
Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan stated “This is politics based on racism, discrimination and xenophobia. “

Ambassador of Türkiye Tahsin Burcuoglu recalled from Paris today in protest.
Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan claimed ‘This is using Turkophobia and Islamophobia to gain votes, and it raises concerns regarding these issues not only in Francebut all Europe.’

Türkiye froze political and military relations with France in retaliation for the approval by the French parliament’s lower chamber of a measure that makes it a crime to deny so called genocide against Armenians a century ago.

Erdogan said Ottoman Türkiye hadn’t committed genocide against Armenians and that his country is proud of its own history. Türkiye will “take incremental steps and apply them with determination as long as this position continues,” Erdogan said today in Istanbul.

The French legislation is “unjust, inaccurate and Türkiye condemns it vehemently,” Erdogan stated. “People will not forgive those who distort history, or use history as a tool for political exploitation.”

Türkiye accuses French colonialists of massacres in Algeria after Paris bill makes it a crime to deny killings of Armenians in 1915 byOttoman Empire was genocide.

“France massacred an estimated 15 per cent of the Algerian population starting from 1945. This is genocide,” Mr Erdogan stated, accusing Mr Sarkozy of “fanning hatred of Muslims and Turks for electoral gains.” ”This vote that took place in France, a France in which five million Muslims live, clearly shows to what point racism, discrimination and Islamophobia have reached dangerous levels in France and Europe,” he stated. When it comes to massacres French action against Algerian rebels in the aftermath of the Second World War, Mr Erdogan concluded Mr Sarkozy’s father had been a French legionnaire in Algeriain 1945 and should be able to tell his son of “massacres”.

France fought a long guerrilla war between 1954 and 1962 to try to hang on to its Algerian colony. Estimates for the number of dead vary wildly.Algeriaputs it at more than a million, French historians estimate 250,000.

Earlier, Türkiye’s ambassador to France had left Paris and Ankara had announced diplomatic sanctions – banning political visits between the countries – and frozen military ties between the theoretical Nato allies. ”We are really very sad. Franco-Turkish relations did not deserve this,” Ambassador Tahsin Burcuoglu said before taking a flight home. “When there is a problem it always comes from the French side.” ”The damage is already done. We have been accused of genocide! How could we not overreact? Türkiye will never recognise this story of an Armenian genocide.” he stated.”There are limits. A country like Türkiye cannot be treated like this,” he declared.

French carmakers including Renault control a fifth of Türkiye’s auto market and French banks including BNP Paribas SA have assets in the country exceeding $20 billion. French direct investment in Türkiye between 2002 and 2010 was $4.8 billion according to Turkish Embassy in Paris.

Türkiye has been warning France for the past week that its fast-growing economy means it can really hurt companies such as Airbus SAS and Electricite de France SA if the measure goes through. Türkiye’s economy grew an annual 8.2 percent in the third quarter, a pace only exceeded by China in the world.

French carmaker Renault SA employs 6,800 people in Türkiye and is pressing on with production because the “French decision is a political development,” said Ibrahim Aybar, chief executive officer of Renault Mais in an interview on CNBC-e television.

In a conversation with journalists ,“The French bill is counter-productive because the emotional reaction in Türkiye can set back the cause for years,” Pope said by telephone. “That’s why France is so short-sighted to introduce this bill.” Pope stated.

Tolga Çakır

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

“Condemnation without hearing both sides is unjust and un-American”Arthur Tremaine Chester, “Angora and the Turks,” The New York Times Current History, Feb.1923

“Believing 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 himself.”Joseph L. Grabill, ”PROTESTANT DIPLOMACY AND THE NEAR EAST: Missionary influence on American policy, 1810-1927,” 1971, p. 264

“…Matter sent 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

“No Englishman 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 proof.” 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,” TheNew Republic, Nov. 1928

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”):

Break or save Franco-Turkish relations?

Tolga Çakır — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 14:03:06 +0000

CONTRIBUTOR
MAXIME GAUIN

A new bill criminalizing the “denial” of the unsubstantiated “Armenian genocide” claims was introduced in the French National Assembly with the barely implicit support of Mr. Sarkozy.

The co-chairmen of the Coordination Council of France’s Armenian Associations, namely Jean-Marc “Ara” Toranian, former spokesman of the terrorist group ASALA, and Mourad Papazian, unrepentant sympathizer of another Armenian terrorist group, the JCAG/ARA, did not expect that anymore, at least not in 2011. The level of knowledge of the MPs supporting the bill is exemplified by Richard Mallie (UMP), who still uses the crude forgeries of Aram Andonian that have been proven to be fakes since 1983.

The bill is not the result of the Armenian nationalists’ real influence in France; on May 4, 2011 they suffered a humiliating “fiasco”(this is their word) in the Senate after several other failures to obtain any discussion of the old, now defunct, criminalization bill (2008, 2009, 2010). The new bill is not the expression of a wave of anti-Turkish, or still less, anti-Islam sentiment. The Turkish season (2008-2009) in France was a success. According to a recent Gallup survey, 64 percent of the French have a good opinion toward Islam. There is indeed nothing in France like the Protestant fundamentalism in the U.S. and Germany or the vehement anti-Muslim and anti-Turkish demagogy of the so-called “Party for Liberty” in the Netherlands. The French colonial tradition, despite obvious shortcomings, was pro-Islamic and even largely pro-Turkish. The background is so completely different.

In a sense, the reasons for the bill are sadder than that. Mr. Sarkozy is afraid – not without reason – of losing the presidential election and as a result is ready to do anything to obtain more votes. His initiative is a serious error, even in a strictly electoral perspective. Assimilation leads many French Armenians to vote out of ethnic considerations. Even the majority of the nationalist activists and sympathizers vote traditionally for the same party because they prefer to show an electoral fidelity with the hope of being awarded – at least by subventions – for their associations.

So, the oldest alliance still existing in the world – the alliance of François I and Süleyman the Legislator, perpetuated in 1921 by the Ankara agreement and again in October 2011 by the Franco-Turkish agreement against terrorism – is not jeopardized by prejudices but prejudices toward prejudices and in addition toward the personal ties of a few dozen Armenian activists with a few dozen MPs. Similarly, the blog opened on the website of Le Monde by the author of this article was censored because of Armenian pressure. This is merely the result of social intercourse of a few Armenians with one or two editors. The failure of French Turkology to produce works comparable to the ones of Edward J. Erickson, Guenter Lewy and Justin McCarthy, or the passivity of most French Turks until very recently, also has something to do with the problem.

But this is not the time for a blame game. Political irresponsibility can provoke irreversible damages in the context of the Arab Spring – especially the repression in Syria, which makes Franco-Turkish cooperation so desirable – and the unresolved problems in the Caucasus. The French language was studied in Turkey for decades, but especially since the “recognition” of 2001 there has been a dramatic decrease, and that is why this text is written in English. The “recognition” of the “genocide” claims and the irresponsible statements of Mr. Sarkozy about Turkey cost France many contracts and its place in Nabucco. The vote of the liberticidal bill would still be worse. Even if it has nothing to do with any deep anti-Turkish and anti-Muslim feelings in France, the vote on the censorship legislation proposal would be interpreted like that by many Turks and not only by the less educated people.

Armenian nationalism has been used since its revival in 1965 as a tool by powers which have agendas other than European – or more generally Western – unity. Alas, it is also helped by the miscalculation of some Western politicians. As a result, the French deputies have a heavy responsibility. They can choose to damage irremediably the relations with a rising regional power and as a result seriously hurt the European Union policy, the French economy and their prestige and diplomacy. They can also choose to prefer French and European interests, as well as the value of free speech, to the cries of former supporters of Armenian terrorism.

*Maxime Gauin is a researcher at the International Strategic Research Organization (USAK-ISRO) and a Ph.D. candidate at the Middle East Technical University department of history.

Hürriyet Daily News

Sassounian’s column of Dec. 1, 2011

Media Watch — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 14:58:40 +0000

No one should be Fooled by Erdogan’s

Empty Apology for Kurdish Massacres

By Harut Sassounian

Publisher, The California Courier

Turkish society was thrown into turmoil last week when Prime Minister Erdogan issued an unexpected apology for the hitherto taboo topic of the Kurdish massacres in southeastern Turkey in the 1930’s.

There are many striking similarities between the Kurdish massacres and the Armenian Genocide. Under the guise of quelling a rebellion, the Turkish government, led by Kemal Ataturk, ordered the killing and deportation of tens of thousands of Alevi Kurds from Dersim, now known as Tunceli. Turkish warplanes dropped bombs and sprayed poisonous gases on Kurds hiding in mountain caves.

Ironically, taking part in the bombing raids was Sabiha Gokcen, Turkey’s first female pilot, who was an Armenian orphan adopted by Ataturk. Gokcen was unwittingly participating in the killing of not only Kurds, but also fellow Armenians who had sought refuge in the remote region of Dersim, after having survived the 1915 Genocide.

Erdogan’s surprise admission of the “Dersim killings” was prompted not by an honest desire to lift the veil of secrecy from a long concealed state crime, but by the intent to discredit his main political opponent, Kemal Kilicdaroglu, leader of the Republican People’s Party (CHP) which was in power during the Kurdish atrocities.

Erdogan shrewdly scored a major public relations coup when Kilicdaroglu, a native of Dersim who had lost many members of his family, refused to reverse the CHP’s long-standing cover up of these massacres.

Seeing an opportunity to deliver a bigger blow to his reticent rival, Prime Minister Erdogan went on national TV, revealing a series of documents from the state archives that provided chilling details of the brutal torture of Kurdish men, rape of women and mutilation of children. In a dramatic gesture, he tore up the government’s falsified report on the Dersim carnage.

To counter Erdogan’s attacks, Kilicdaroglu came up with a surprise announcement of his own. Despite his failure to acknowledge the Dersim massacres, Kilicdaroglu claimed that an apology was not enough! He challenged Erdogan to release all archival documents on this subject, and return the properties confiscated from the Kurdish victims.

The Prime Minister’s surprise apology generated a major national debate in Turkey. Some media commentators viewed Erdogan’s acknowledgment of the Dersim massacres not only as an effort to undermine Kilicdaroglu’s support with millions of Alevi voters, but also to tarnish Ataturk’s legacy. Others saw hopeful signs that Erdogan was preparing to face other dark chapters of Turkey’s history, including the Armenian Genocide.

Kilicdaroglu, in turn, tried to damage Erdogan’s reputation by accusing him of planning to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide, and likened his mentality to that of Diaspora Armenians. Erdogan promptly distanced himself from what he considered to be an insulting comparison, and sharply rebuked and warned his political opponent for drawing such a parallel!

Erdogan’s racist reaction did not bode well for those who claimed that “the genie is out of the bottle,” hoping that the Prime Minister’s apology to the Kurds would set a precedent for Turkey’s eventual acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide. When one carefully examines the Prime Minister’s distorted statements on the Dersim massacres, one cannot help but note the eerie similarities with Turkey’s denialist views on the Armenian Genocide:

1) Minimizing the Kurdish death toll from tens of thousands to 13,800;

2) Describing the Kurdish massacres merely as “killings” or “events”;

3) Placing the blame for the “killings” on a rival political party rather than the Turkish state; and

4) Offering no compensation and no restitution to heirs of the Kurdish victims.

All those hoping that Erdogan would issue a similar apology for the Armenian Genocide probably do not realize the futility of their expectation. In reality, a Turkish apology would do more harm than good to the Armenian Cause, as it would discourage some Armenians from pursuing restitution from Turkey, mislead the international community into thinking that Armenian demands are now completely fulfilled, and deprive Armenians from attracting further political support for their national cause.

Furthermore, should Erdogan apologize for the Armenian Genocide, the international community would shower him with praise, nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize, and support Turkey’s candidacy to the European Union.

The international community should rather demand that Erdogan fully acknowledge the genocides of Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks, and Kurds, issue a genuine apology, offer compensation, and return the confiscated properties to the heirs of millions of innocent victims.

The Misuse of “Memoirs of Count Bernstorff” in Armenian Nationalist Publications

Tolga Çakır — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:03:28 +0000

Friday, 18 March 2011

ABSTRACT

To maintain the use of more than dubious sources (the “Andonian documents” and Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story), the Memoirs of Count Bernstorff, or more exactly three short quotations, were used by a part of the Armenian side as a corroborative proof. However, two of the three quotations from these Memoirs are tendentiously extracted of their context, and the third is just an unreliable opinion.

KEYWORDS

Andonian, Dadrian, Bersntorff, genocide, Morgenthau, Ternon, Dadrian.

From the 1980’s, some Armenian and pro-Armenian writers refer to the Memoirs of Count Johann Heinrich von Bernstorff, ambassador of Germany in Ottoman Empire from 1917 to 1918, as a complementary evidence of the alleged intention of CUP government to extermination Ottoman Armenians, so to support the “genocide” label. This use appeared in a precise context: the desperate attempts to defend the authenticity of crude forgeries, i.e. the “Andonian documents” [1] then the Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story. [2] These attempts were made by the Armenian-American sociologist Vahakn N. Dadrian [3] (currently director of the Zoryan Institute, a think-tank close to Armenian Revolutionary Federation [ARF], after his forced retirement from State University of New York because sexual harassment) and his French follower, the surgeon Yves Ternon [4], also a great friend of ARF, who acknowledges to have been leaded on Armenian issue only by Armenian nationalist groups or individuals, and to have always refused any contact with Turkish historians [5]. Both Mr. Dadrian’s and Mr. Ternon’s argumentations on Andonian and Morgenthau are, as a whole, less than convincing [6], that is why even Armenian and pro-Armenian historians raised serious doubts on the authenticity of “Andonian telegrams” [7]; but the goal of this paper is limited to the misuse of Bernstorff’s Memoirs, published in German in 1935, and translated into English one year later. [8]

The Quotations

In the 1980’s, Mrs. Dadrian and Ternon used one quotation of Memoirs of Count Bernstorff, to corroborate the allegations of Aram Andonian’s forged documents:

“When I kept on pestering him about the Armenian question, he once said with a smile: ‘What on earth do you want? The question is settled, there are no more Armenians,’ […].”

In 1999, Mr. Dadrian used the same quotation to defend the Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story, arguing that “German ambassador Bernstorff in his memoirs quotes Talât almost in identical terms”. [9]

No surprisingly, the quotation was used again, later, by others. [10]

In 1995, Mr. Dadrian used also two other quotations, in a rather different context, but also to support the “genocide” allegation [11]:

“His complicity in the Armenian crime he [Talat] atoned for his death.”

“Armenia [= Eastern Anatolia] where the Turks have systematically trying to exterminate the Christian population.”

It is hardly doubtful that if such sentences are accepted are face value, with such interpretation, they constitute a clear indication in favor of the “genocide” label, even if they represent a tiny part of the Memoirs of Count Bernstorff. Both Andonian’s and Morgenthau’s books depict Talat as a ferocious criminal; in the perspective of Mr. Dadrian and Mr. Ternon, the Memoirs of Count Bernstorff corroborate partially such an enormous allegations. However, a more attentive look gives a quite different version.

Critique

The most evident distortion is the first and the most used (“When I kept on pestering him about the Armenian question, he once said with a smile: ‘What on earth do you want? The question is settled, there are no more Armenians’”). The context clarifies the meaning of Bernstorff :
“In this connection an excellent instance is the Grand Vizier, Talaat Pasha, subsequently murdered by an Armenian in Berlin, whom I learnt to respect and liked during my service in Constantinople. A man of absolute integrity, he had unusual gifts that enabled him to climb the steep ascent from the position of telegraph official to that of leading statesman, and a statesman he was in the truest sense of the word. There was not a sign of the parvenu in his behaviour or ideas. As Grand Vizier, Talaat Pasha always gave the impression of a ‘grand seigneur’, and his political conceptions were unencumbered by any pettiness. I never knew any Turk who could fairly be compared with him. He did indeed often promise me more than he could perform. […] However that may be, Talaat usually recognized the right way, and as time went on — and especially after every visit to Europe, he became more of a match for his mighty task. If any statesman could have succeeded in reforming the old Ottoman Empire, it would have been Talaat Pasha, provided that he had been able to consolidate his power and influence. As I have mentioned above, I am not referring to the Turkish Republic of today, with which I unfortunately have no acquaintance.

This constant and considerable contrast between desire and achievement induced in the Grand Vizier a delightful blend of skepticism and gentle cynicism, which increased the charm of that attractive personality. When I kept on pestering him about the Armenian question, he once said with a smile: ‘What on earth do you want? The question is settled, there are no more Armenians,’ a reply which, while admitting his own complicity in the crime, hinted that the European accounts might be exaggerated.” [12]

The most comprehensive quotation is almost self-explanatory:

1) Unlike in Andonian’s forged documents and in Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story, Talat is not depicted by Bernstorff as a monster, a bloody villain, but, quite the contrary, as a moderate and responsible “statesman”.

2) The sentence “The question is settled, there are no more Armenians” is an expression of black humor, criticizing the distorted narrative of pro-Armenian propaganda.

3) Bernstorff does not present Talat as the supervisor of crimes perpetrated against Armenian civilians, but as an “accomplice”.

What Bernstorff means by “complicity” is explained by the context of the second misused quotation:

“His complicity in the Armenian crime he atoned for his death. On this matter he was an offspring of his nation. The statesmen of other lands have often been equally guilty in not opposing and rebuking the prejudices of their fellow-citizens, and it would be unjust to apply European standards to a Turkish statesman, even to one of the caliber of Talaat Pasha.” [13]

So, it is clear that Bernstorff blamed Talat for his incapacity to prevent atrocities committed by some Turks, Kurds, Circassians and Arabs against displaced Armenians, not for any criminal designs against these exiles.

Arrived to this point, let’s notice that the Memoirs of General Otto Liman von Sanders, chief of German military mission in Ottoman Empire (1913-1918), contain also great a praising of Talat’s character, as well as a rebuttal of central government’s guilty in atrocities committed against a part of displaced Armenians. [14]

The third and last quotation (“Armenia [= Eastern Anatolia] where the Turks have systematically trying to exterminate the Christian population” in 1915-1916) is nor distorted neither tendentiously extracted of its context, and so is the single which could be used to support the “genocide” label — however a strange “genocide”, concerning only Armenians of Eastern Anatolia, and not desired by the actual Ottoman central authorities, contrary to all the literature supporting such a label for the Armenian case. Anyway, the Memoirs of Count Bernstorff, like any other historical source, have to be submitted to internal and external critiques.

Bernstorff was not in Turkey but in USA during the Armenian displacement of 1915-1916; as ambassador in Ottoman Empire, he did not quit Istanbul; nowhere in his Memoirs, he claims to have carried a particular investigation on 1915-1916 events, for instance in interviewing German officials of embassy and consulates; nowhere Bernstorff mentions the fifth-column role played from the beginning of WWI Armenian revolutionaries, a fact well documented in German sources [15]; despite his praising of Talat Pasha, Bernstorff’s prejudices about Oriental peoples (surely not worse than the average of his time, that is right) and his lack of curiosity for Turkey (he acknowledges to know roughly nothing on Kemalist Republic) are clear in his book. No one of these facts shows Bernstorff as a first-choice witness for the tragedy of 1915-1916.

More important is the fact that several German witnesses, who were in Eastern Anatolia during WWI, have a quite different version of the story. Especially, General Felix Guse argued that the goal of the forced displacement was to crush the numerous, and coordinated, rebellions of Armenian revolutionary committees which started as early as 1914; and that the atrocities against displaced Armenians were not systematic. [16] General Friedrich Bronsart von Schellendorf supported the same conclusions, and stressed on the absence of criminal designs in Talat’s policy vis-à-vis the Armenians. [17] Heinrich Bergfeld, German consul in Trabzon, whose reports are also used highly selectively by Armenian and pro-Armenian writers — including Mr. Ternon —, concluded, too, that the fate of Armenian deportees was extremely variable, depending on the quality of the escort. [18] The findings of Ernst Jäckh, a German scholar who carried out unofficial missions for German government in Ottoman Empire during WWI, corroborate these conclusions. [19]

Similarly, the journalists Gustav Hjalmar Pravitz (Swedish), George Abel Schreiner (American), and Stefan Steiner (Austrian), who investigated in eastern Anatolia — and even, for the first, in Arab provinces — testified that there was no systematic destruction of Armenians; all three stressed that bureaucratic ineptness and lack of relevant material were mostly responsible for the human losses, and that allegations of atrocities widely diffused in Western countries contained a substantial part of inventions and exaggerations. [20] Stefan Steiner witnessed also the war crimes of Armenian volunteers against Turkish civilians in 1918. [21]

Even in the Blue Book published in 1916 by the Bryce-Toynbee team [22], one can find at least one Western testimony, the statement of the missionary Mary L. Graffam, rejecting explicitly the allegation of systematic extermination, as well as any blame on top-rank Ottoman officials or Ottoman government. [23] Unlike the majority of sources used in the work of “war propaganda” (according to Arnold J. Tonybee’s proper words [24]), Graffam testified only on what she saw, and interviewed both Turks and Armenians.

The major Edward W. C. Noel, sent in 1919 to Anatolia by British government to fight the Kemalists, concluded, after investigation, that Turkish atrocities against Armenians during WWI were “isolated” — at least in the region where he travelled —, and added that the war crimes of Armenian and Nestorian volunteers against Kurds in 1916 were — at least in his region, one more time — worse and more “systematic”. [25]
So, even in neglecting the considerable body of Ottoman evidence against the charge of systematic extermination [26] and the failure of Malta’s British prosecutor to find any evidence for this charge [27], and in focusing on Western sources, the conclusion imposed by an impartial study is that Bernstorff’s allegation is prejudiced and not convincing.

Conclusion

In attempting to save, against all the evidence, the authenticity of crude forgeries, two of the most prominent supporters of “Armenian genocide” label misused of the Memoirs of Count Bernstorff, by distorted quotations and the elevation of one unreliable opinion until the rank of evidence. Both these authors are perfectly able to understand that they do not make an honest and scholar use of Bernstorff’s book. But such a finding will surprise nobody familiarized with Mr. Dadrian’s and Mr. Ternon’s selective, and in several cases purely misleading, use of sources. [28]
The scholar study of Armenian issue, a highly sensitive and politicized topic, aggravated far after 1916 by Armenian terrorism and use of both verbal and physical violence — until an attempt of murder by explosives — against historians who disagree with “genocide” allegation [29], needs a special attention to the classical duties of historical work. The shortcomings are certainly not coming from the Armenian side only, but the recurrent use of notorious forgeries — like the “Andonian documents”, the Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story, or Mevlanzade Rifat’s book — and seriously dishonest quotations is the exclusivity of Armenian and pro-Armenian authors. [30] A real debate on the tragedy of 1915-1916 requests that scholars calling “genocide” the fate of Ottoman Armenians express clearly and definitely their condemnation of misleading propaganda; and their acceptance that those who challenge the charge of “genocide” are not necessarily lackeys of the Turkish government, mislead idiots or morally obtuse individuals. Unfortunately, excepted Hilmar Kaiser, few supporters of “Armenian genocide” label have such a scholar level. The basic fact that, since 1915, no one conclusive evidence was showed to support the charge of planned extermination [31] and, on the other hand, the strong proofs that Ottoman government severely punished several hundreds of Muslims who believed wrongly that everything was permitted during the forced displacement [32], as well as positive measures — like the protective policy of Djemal Pasha (Cemal Paşa), third figure of CUP regime, in favor of Armenian exiles [33] or the big expenses of central government for them [34] —, should however incite to humility and prudence.

The needed reconciliation between Turks and Armenian implies an impartial study of the past and a mutual, full condemnation of crimes committed from both sides. Until today, the huge historical literature “contains frequently considerable historical distortions, which takes away any value to it,” as pointed correctly Prof. Xavier de Planhol, one of the best scholars of Turkish studies. [35]The misuse of Memoirs of Count Bernstorff is just one distortion among so many others.

*Maxime Gauin is a visiting researcher at USAK.

References:

1) The most comprehensive demonstration on Andonian’s fake documents is: Şinasi Orel and Sürreya Yuca, The Talât Pasha Telegrams. Historical Fact or Armenian Fiction?, Nicosia: K. Rüstem & Brothers, 1986 (first edition in Turkish, Ankara, TTK, 1983); it is summarized in Türkkaya Ataöv, The Andonian “documents” attributed to Talat Pasha are Forgeries!, Ankara University Press, 1984 and Jean Loyrette’s argumentation for Orly attack’s trial: Terrorist attack at Orly: Statements and Evidence Presented at the Trial. February 19 – March 2 1985, Ankara University Press, 1985.
2) On this book, see Heath Lowry, The Story Behind Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story, Istanbul: The Isis Press, 1990; see also Şükrü Aya, The Genocide of Truth Continues… But Facts Tell the Truth, Istanbul: Derin Yayinevi, 2010; Harry Elmer Barnes, The Genesis of the World War, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1926, pp. 241-247; C. Hartley Grattan, Why We Fought, New York: The Vanguard Press, 1929, pp. 250-251; George Abel Schreiner, The Craft Sinister, New York: G. Albert Geyer, 1920, pp. XXI and 125-126.
3) “The Naim-Andonian Documents on the World War I Destruction of Ottoman Armenians: The Anatomy of a Genocide,” International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. XVIII, Issue 3, August 1986.
4) Yves Ternon, Enquête sur la négation d’un génocide, Marseille: Parenthèses, 1989.
5) Yves Ternon, Les Arméniens. Histoire d’un génocide, Paris: Le Seuil, 1977, second edition, 1996 (English translation: The Armenians. History of a Genocide, New York, St Vartan’s Press, 1984).
6) Michael M. Gunter, “Gunter Response to Dadrian Article,” International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, Volume 19, Issue 4, November 1987, pp. 523-524; “A Reply to Judith Tucker’s Excperpt of Vahakn Dadrian’s Article,” id., Volume 40, Issue 4, Autumn 2008, pp. 728-729; Guenter Lewy, The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey, Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2005, pp. 65-73 and 140-142; Jean-Louis Mattei, Belgelerle Büyük Ermenistan Peşinde Ermeni Komiteleri, Ankara: Bilgi Yayinevi, 2008.
7) For instance: Christopher Walker, “World War I and the Armenian Genocide,” in Richard G. Hovannisian, (ed.) The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Time, New York: St Martin’s Press, 1997, p. 247.
8) Erinnerungen und Briefe, Zurich: Polygraph Verlag, 1935; Memoirs of Count Bernstorff, New York: Random House, 1936 (translated from German by Eric Sutton); Whitefish (USA): Kessinger Publishing, 2010.
9) V. N. Dadrian, The Key Elements of the Turkish Denial of the Armenian Genocide: a Case Study of Distortion and Falsification, Cambridge (Massachusetts)-Toronto: Zoryan Institute, 1999, p. 41.
10) For instance: http://www.imprescriptible.fr/citations/diplomates
11) V. N. Dadrian, The History of the Armenian Genocide, Providence: Berghahn Books, 2004, p. 211, n. 19 (1st edition, 1995).
12) Memoirs of Count Bernstorff, op. cit., pp. 175-176.
13) Memoirs of Count Bernstorff, op. cit., p. 180.
14) Ottoman Liman von Sanders, Cinq ans de Turquie, Paris: Payot, 1923 (translated from German by Major Mabille), pp. 13 and 185 (original version: Fünf Jahre Türkei, Berlin, A. Scherl, 1920 ; English translation: Five Years in Turkey, Anapolis, United States Naval Institute, 1927; Naval & Military Press Publications, 2005).
15) Edward J. Erickson, “The Armenians and Ottoman Military Policy,” War in History, Volume XV, Issue 2, Spring 2008, pp. 141-167 ; Guenter Lewy, op. cit., pp. 93-94, 99 and 117.
16) Felix Guse, »Der Armenien Aufstand 1915 und seine Folgen«, Wissen und Wehr, Volume VI, 1925, pp. 609-621.
17) Friedrich Bronsart von Schellendorf, »Ein Zeugnis für Talaat Pascha«, Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, 24 July 1921.
18) Guenter Lewy, op. cit., pp. 145-146 et 178-182; Hikmet Özdemir and alii, Ermeniler: Sürgün ve Göç, Ankara, TTK, 2004, pp. 77-82.
19) Ernest Jackh (Ernst Jäckh), The Rising Crescent, New York-Toronto: Farrar & Rinehart, 1944, pp. 43-45, 134 and 163.
20) Gustav H. Pravitz, “Armeniernas läge,” Nya Dagligt Allehanda, 23 April 1917; George Abel Schreiner, op. cit., pp. 124-125; Stefan Steiner, “Armenië,” Algemeen Handelsblad, 25 May 1920 (I express my thanks to Michael van der Galiën for the translation).
21) Justin McCarthy, Death and Exile. The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims. 1821-1922, Princeton, Darwin Press, 1996, pp. 230 and 242, n. 107.
22) On the general methods of this propaganda team, see, for instance: Horace C. Peterson, Propaganda for War: The Campaign Against American Neutrality, 1914-1917, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1939, pp. 53-59; and Arthur Ponsonby, Falsehood in War Time, London: Unwin Brothers, 1928, pp. 78-82 and 128-134.
23) The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, London-New York-Toronto: Hodder & Stoughton, 1916, pp. 305-308. To understand why Graffam’s report is unfortunately not representative of the average level of this Blue Book, see Justin McCarthy, “Wellington House and the Turks,” in The Turks, Ankara: Yeni Türkiye, 2002, tome IV, pp. 457-467; Hikmet Özdemir, Arnold Toynbee’nin Ermeni Sorununa Bakışı, Ankara, 2005; James Morgan Read, Atrocity Propaganda. 1914-1919, New Haven-London: Yale University Press/Oxford University Press, 1941, pp. 221-222; and Ahmet Rüstem Bey, La Guerre mondiale et la question turco-arménienne, Berne: Stæmpfli & Cie, 1918, pp. 95-132.
24) Arnold J. Toynbee, The Western Question in Greece and Turkey, London-Bombay-Sydney, Constable & C°, 1922, p. 50.
25) Stanford J. Shaw, From Empire to Republic. The Turkish War of National Liberation, Ankara: TTK, 2000, tome II, p. 922.
26) For example: Kâmuran Gürün, The Armenian File, Istanbul, Türkiye iş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2007 (first edition in English, 1985), pp. 237-292; Hikmet Özdemir and Yusuf Sarınay, op. cit.; Şinasi Orel and Sürreya Yuca, op. cit.
27) Guenter Lewy, op. cit., pp. 125-126; Bilâl N. Şimşir, The Deportees of Malta and the Armenian Question, 2nd edition, Ankara, 2003 ; Salâhi R. Sonyel, “Armenian Deportations: A Re-Appraisal in the Light of New Documents,” Belleten, January 1972, pp. 59-60.
28) Mary Schaeffer Conroy, “Review of Vahakn N. Dadrian, Warrant for Genocide : Key Elements of Turco-Armenian Conflict,” The Social Science Journal, Volume XXXVII, Issue 3, July 2000, pp. 481-483; Edward J. Erickson, “Armenian Massacres, New Records Undercut Old Blame”, The Middle East Quarterly, Volume XIII, N° 3, Summer 2006 ; Clive Foss, “Book Review of Vahakn Dadrian, German Responsabilities in the Armenian Genocide,” The Institute for the Study of Genocide Newsletter, Autumn 1997, pp. 12-16; Hilmar Kaiser, “Germany and the Armenian Genocide, Part II: Reply to Vahakn N. Dadrian’s Response”, Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies, IX, 1996, pp. 135-40; Guenter Lewy, op. cit., pp. 46-89, 94 and 160-161; Georges de Maleville, La Tragédie arménienne de 1915, Paris: Lanore, 1988; Jeremy Salt, “Forging the Past: OUP and the Armenian Question,” Eurasia Critic, January 2010; Malcolm E. Yapp, “Book Review”, Middle Eastern Studies, Volume XXXII, Issue 4, October 1996, pp. 395-397.
29) Maria Çakırağa, Statement in Opposition to Parole of Hampig “Harry” Sassounian (C-88440), 2010; Michael M. Gunter, “Pursuing the Just Cause of their People”. A Study of Contemporary Armenian Terrorism, Westport-New York-London: Greenwood Press, 1986; Gaïdz Minassian, Guerre et terrorisme arméniens. 1972-1998, Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 2002; “Crude Bomb Explodes at UCLA Professor’s Home,” The Los Angeles Times, 4 October 1977, p. D1; “Armenians: Community in Turkey Worried Over Impact of Terrorism.” The Los Angeles Times, 12 May 1982, p. B26; “Armenian Terrorism: Near East Feud Rages in America,” The Washington Post, 17 May 1982, p. A1; “Press Clanger,” Times Higher Education, 29 March 1996; « Veinstein persiste mais en vain », Haïastan, June 2000, p. 10.
30) In addition to the above mentioned references, see Türkkaya Ataöv, Armenian Falsifications, New York: Okey, 2008; Cem Özgönül, Der Mythos Eines Völkermordes, Köln: Önel Verlag, 2005; Erman Şahin, “A Scrutiny of Akçam’s Version of History and the Armenian Genocide,” Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, Volume XXVIII, Issue 2, 2008, pp. 303-319; id., “Review Essay: The Armenian Question,” Middle East Policy, Volume XVII, N° 1, Spring 2010, pp. 144-157.
31) Guenter Lewy, passim.
32) Yusuf Halaçoğlu, The Story of 1915. What Happened to the Ottoman Armenians?, Ankara: TTK, 2008, pp. 82-87; Guenter Lewy, op. cit., pp. 111 and 113; Hikmet Özdemir and Yusuf Sarınay (ed.), Turkish-Armenian Conflict Documents, Ankara: TBMM, 2007, p. 261.
33) Guenter Lewy, op. cit., pp. 196-198 and 218-220.
34) Yusuf Halaçoğlu, op. cit., pp. 71-82.
35) Xavier de Planhol, Minorités en Islam. Géographie politique et sociale, Paris: Flammarion, 1997, p. 450, n. 144.

Turkish Weekly

London Conference: Prejudice, Deception, and the Armenian Question

Tolga Çakır — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 22:40:37 +0000

Dear Sir / Madam,

You are kindly invited to attend our annual conference on the 4^th February 2011 on the subject of “Turkish- Armenian Relations”, details of which are attached.

The guest speaker, Prof Justin McCarthy specializes in the social and demographic history of the Modern Middle East, particularly Turkey and the Ottoman Empire. He is presently Distinguished Professor of Arts and Sciences and Distinguished University Scholar at the University of Louisville.The event will be chaired by Professor Şevket Pamuk who is the Chair of Contemporary Turkish Studies at the European Institute, London School of Economics and Political Science. He is a leading economic historian of the Ottoman Empire, the Middle East and modern Turkey.

This is the fifth conference in the series and has been organised in the memory of 34 Turkish diplomats and other innocent victims who were murdered by various Armenian terrorist groups between 1973 and 1985. The aim of these conferences is to promote mutual understanding and discuss issues concerning Turkish-Armenian relations both recent and historic on an academic platform.

We very much hope that you will be able to attend the conference.

Yours sincerely,

FTA UK

——————————————————————————————————————

You are kindly invited to attend an evening conference entitled

‘TURKISH – ARMENIAN RELATIONS’

Friday, 4th February 2011, 6 pm for 6.30 pm

Venue:

Sheikh Zayed Theatre,

London School of Economics,

New Academic Building,

Lincoln’s Inn Fields,

London WC2A 2AE

GUEST SPEAKER

Prof Justin McCarthy

“Prejudice, Deception, and the Armenian Question”

For those who study the troubled history of relations between Turks and Armenians, the question naturally arises, “How could so many have been so wrong?” Why did Europeans and Americans at the time, and still today, believe a story of persecution that is demonstrably wrong? The answer lies in ignorance, prejudice, and deception. Ignorance made politicians and editors, then and today, believe whatever fit their prejudices. And prejudice caused them to ignore the facts before them. Instead, they accepted the often deliberate falsehoods spread by Armenian rebels and their supporters. This presentation offers examples of the deceptions that lie behind what is commonly believed of the Armenian Question.

CHAIRED BY

Prof Şevket Pamuk

* * * * *

Organised by

THE FEDERATION OF TURKISH ASSOCIATIONS UK

The Federation of Turkish Associations UK (FTA UK) is an umbrella organization consisting of 16 Turkish associations, representing approximately 300,000 British Turks and Turkish citizens in the UK. We are following closely any developments and issues concerning our community in this country and we make representations at governmental and/or local levels. We also serve as a broad platform reinforcing and building on the cultural and economic bridges between Turkey and the UK.

www.turkishfederationuk.com

* * * * *

Non – Members Welcome

Attendance is free but by registration only

Please register at

turkishfederationuk@yahoo.co. uk

or telephone / text 07788 908 803

*** * * * ***

Prof Justin McCarthy

Justin McCarthy received a Ph.D. in Near Eastern history from U.C.L.A. in 1978 and a Certificate in Demography from PrincetonUniversity in 1980. He is presently Distinguished Professor of Arts and Sciences and Distinguished University Scholar at the University of Louisville. Professor McCarthy specializes in the social and demographic history of the Modern Middle East, particularly Turkey and the Ottoman Empire. His books include Muslims and Minorities, Death and Exile, The Population of Palestine, TheOttoman Turks, The Ottoman Peoples and the End of Empire,Population History of the Middle East and the Balkans,Who Are the Turks?(with Carolyn McCarthy), The Armenian Rebellion at Van(with Esat Arslan, Cemalettin Taşkiran, and Ömer Turan), and Turkey and the Turks (with Carolyn McCarthy).His book on the image of Turks in America, The Turk in America, was published in 2010. He has also written a number of articles on Middle Eastern, Balkan, Turkish, and Ottoman topics. As a historical cartographer, he has produced the Middle Eastern map series for the Middle East Studies Association and the U.S. Department of Education, as well as maps for publications.He has lectured in Turkey, Azerbaijan, Britain, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Israel, Bosnia, and Saudi Arabia, as well as in the United States and Canada. In 2005 he was invited to address a special session of the Turkish Grand National Assembly. Rotary International gave him its Paul Harris Award. He has held a Senior Research Fellowship from the U.S. National Endowment for the Humanities, a National Needs Postdoctoral Fellowship from the National Science Foundation, a Fulbright-Hays fellowship, anInternational Research and Studies Program grant from the U.S. Department of Education, and other grants and awards. Professor McCarthy has served on the Boards of the Institute of Turkish Studies, the Turkish Studies Association, and the International Congress for Asian and North African Studies, as well as the advisory boards of various organizations.

Prof Sevket Pamuk

Professor Şevket Pamuk is Chair of Contemporary Turkish Studies at the European Institute, London School of Economics and Political Science. He is a leading economic historian of the Ottoman Empire, the Middle East and modern Turkey. He is the author of The Ottoman Empire and European Capitalism 1820-1913: Trade, Investment and Production (Cambridge University Press, 1987); A Monetary History of the Ottoman Empire (Cambridge University Press, 2000) and jointly with Roger Owen, A History of the Middle East Economies in the Twentieth Century (I.B. Tauris Publishers and Harvard University Press 1998). A collection of his articles on the Ottoman economy recently appeared asOttoman Economy and Its Institutions (Ashgate-Variorum, 2008). After attending high school in Istanbul, Pamuk graduated from Yale University and obtained his PhD. degree in Economics from the University of California at Berkeley. He has since taught at various universities in Turkey and the United States including Ankara, Pennsylvania, Villanova, Princeton, Michigan at Ann Arbor, Northwestern and beginning in 1994 at Bogaziçi (Bosphorus) University, Istanbul as Professor of Economics and Economic History. Şevket Pamuk was the President of the European Historical Economics Society, an association of European economic historians, has been a member of the Executive Committee of the International Economic History Association, a member of the Standing Committee on the Humanities of the European Science Foundation and is a member of the Academy of Sciences of Turkey. He serves on the Editorial Boards of various academic journals including European Review of Economic History and The Journal of Economic History.

Supported By Turkish Forum World Turkish Alliance UK

Suprime Court Rejects The ATAA & TCA Sponsored Genocide Denial into Public Schools

Media Watch — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 03:25:20 +0000

WE HAVE LOST ONE MAJOR STEP- FALSE ARMENIAN CLAIMS WILL BE THOUGHT IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS AMERICAN SUPRIME COURT RULES:

AMERIKAN YUKSEK MAHKEMESI SOZDE SOYKIRIMIN OKULLARDA OKUNMASINA YESIL ISIK YAKDI:

TO SUPPORT TURKISH FORUM’S GLOBAL LOBBY ACTIVITIES PLEASE VISIT

http://www.turkishforum.com.tr/tr/content/bagislar-ve-uye-aidatlari/

===============================================================

ANCA Welcomes Supreme Court Rejection
Of Massachusetts Genocide Denial Lawsuit

High Court Declines to Consider Turkish Lobby-Sponsored Bid to Force
Genocide Denial into Public Schools

WASHINGTON–A longstanding legal campaign, spearheaded by pro-Turkey
lobbies, to force the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to include historically
inaccurate Armenian Genocide denial materials in their education curriculum
was killed Wednesday by a U.S. Supreme Court decision declining to hear an
appeal to a lower court ruling dismissing the case, reported the Armenian
National Committee (ANCA).

“We welcome the Supreme Court’s decision to decline to hear this deeply
flawed and dangerous case, and thus uphold the U.S. Court of Appeals First
Circuit landmark decision rejecting efforts by genocide deniers to abuse the

Document2 1/21/2011

American legal system to bring their hateful agenda to our nation’s public
schools,” said ANCA Executive Director Aram Hamparian. “This victory, while
certainly a serious setback to Turkey’s campaign of denial, will, just as
surely, not mark the end of the concerted and well-funded efforts by allies of
Ankara to use our nation’s great freedoms to enforce their own version of
Article 301, silencing discussion of the Armenian Genocide in America’s
classrooms.”

This legal battle started in 2005, when, according to media accounts, the
Assembly of Turkish American Associations solicited the assistance of two
local teachers, a student, and his parents to file the Griswold vs. Driscoll
case against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in an effort to force the
state to include Genocide denial materials in its online education curriculum
guide. In June of 2009, U.S. District Court Judge Mark Wolf dismissed the
case stating that the plaintiffs are “are not entitled to relief in federal court.”
The ATAA and fellow plaintiffs appealed the decision, sending the matter for
review by the First Circuit Court of Appeals. In August, 2010, the First Circuit
Court affirmed Judge Wolf’s dismissal of the case, with the majority opinion
prepared by retired Supreme Court Justice David Souter.
The First Circuit Court decision can be read in the appendix.

Throughout the legal process, the ANCA partnered with the Armenian Bar
Association and groups including the Irish Immigration Society, Jewish
Alliance for Law and Social Action, NAACP, Genocide Education Project and
the Zoryan Institute in preparing amicus briefs in support of the
Massachusetts Commonwealth’s calls to dismiss the case. Attorneys from
Wilmer, Cutler, Hale and Dorr LLP, filed the briefs and championed the case
pro-bono. Other groups that submitted their own amicus briefs included the
International Association of Genocide Scholars and the Armenian Assembly.
This case is seen as part of a larger strategy by Turkish American groups to
use the legal system to harass human rights advocates on issues relating to
the Armenian Genocide. The most recent instance is the lawsuit filed by
representatives of the Turkish Coalition of America against the University of
Minnesota for cautioning visitors to their Holocaust Studies website about
online resources which deny the Armenian Genocide.

The Middle East Studies Association, this week, sent an open letter to the
Turkish Coalition urging them to drop the lawsuit, the full text of which can
be viewed in the appendix

Document2 1/21/2011

FOR FULL TEXT AND ATTACHMENTS…LETTERS ..PICTURES .. SEE

ABD Yüksek Mahkemesi’nden Türk Tezlerine Ret/ Inludes ANCA news/court
ruling/Amicus brief by Armenians
Download PDF 8MB
http://www.box.net/shared/btyty5tdhi

Letter to the Leader of the Ealing Council

Tolga Çakır — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 19:31:30 +0000

To: Honorable Councillor Julian Bell, Leader of the Ealing Council
c/o Labour Group Members’ Room, Ealing Town Hall , New Broadway,

Dear Councillor Bell,

We have read your statement to Turkish Times with great sadness and disappointment. It is hard to believe that such an ill advised and ill judged decision can be taken by wise and presumably informed Councillors. Both the Labour and the Liberal Democrat Councillors seem unfortunately to have been persuaded/pressurised by S Pound MP and Councillor Iskenderian, with participation by The Armenian National Committee of United Kingdom. (ANC UK is the main Armenian association which claims the “recognition” of the “Armenian genocide” and is an arm of Armenian Revolutionary Federation, ARF. The ARF controlled one of the two principal Armenian terrorist groups, the so-called “Justice Commandos for the Armenian Genocide/Armenian Revolutionary Army” - Francis P. Hyland, Armenian Terrorism: the Past, the Present, the Prospects - Boulder -San Francisco-Oxford: Westview Press, 1991, pp. 61-62 – this information has already been provided in an email to you by Maxime Gauin 03/01/11).

What is also fundamentally wrong with this action is that the decision has been taken without listening and weighing up the argument on the other side, and holding the discussion/hearing un-announced to all the interested parties. We can not consider this to be an appropriate action by a truly democratic Council.

You may like to read below Mr Ergun Kirlikovali’s comprehensive and authoritative response to this ill judged decision. A new book by SS Aya,The Genocide of Truth Continues, (Derin Yayinlari) is full of documentary information and it is a book which is entirely committed to telling the truth (can be obtained via ssaya@superonline.com).

We would very much appreciate if you and the other responsible Councillors can reconsider their position and appreciate the feelings of the Turkish Community in London .

Yours sincerely,

Betula Nelson

Media Coordinator

ASOUK
www.ataturk.org.uk

OH, EALING COUNCILLORS! HOW COULD YOU?

Ergun Kirlikovali January 6, 2011 Turkish Forum

To: Honorable Councillor Julian Bell, Leader of the Ealing Council
c/o Labour Group Members’ Room, Ealing Town Hall , New Broadway,

Re: Decision of Ealing Council to officially recognize the long discredited political claim of Armenian ‘genocide’ as settled history

Dear Honorable Councillor Julian Bell,

It is difficult and painful for me, the son of Turkish survivors on both maternal and paternal sides, to hear of Ealing Council’s unfortunate resolution, based on an Armenian’s misrepresentations—i.e. Councillor Iskendarian—where Armenian war crimes, Armenian hate crimes, and their Muslim, mostly Turkish, victims, are curiously missing. If one excludes half the story, well, even the American civil war can be made to look like a genocide.

I realize that this was not a unanimous decision and that some prudent members considered the motion tabled by an Armenian (Cllr Iskanderian) one sided, without input from responsible opposing views and hence, judged it ill-advised and divisive. I am also aware of at least one councillor saying “…I have never come across a motion in my nine years on the council that so blatantly sought to pitch one community against another – especially on a subject which is highly sensitive and where no member of the council is really able to make a proper and considered judgment…” I truly appreciate those members who thought that way, but I wish they took the trouble to stay on and vote no so that this blatant and malicious fraud could be thwarted.

Those terrible “War Years” of 1912-1922 (known in Turkish as “Seferberlik Yillari”) brought five consecutive wars—Tripoli (North Africa,) Balkan Wars (twice,) World War I, and the Turkish Independence War, in that order— along with wide spread death and destruction on to ALL Ottoman citizens. No Turkish family was left untouched, mine included. Those nameless, faceless Turkish victims are killed for a second time today with politically motivated and baseless charges of Armenian genocide.

Genocide claims are racist because they ignore the Turkish dead: about 3 million during WWI; more than half a million of them at the hands of Armenian ultra-nationalists; and dishonest because genocide charges blatantly dismiss the six T’s of the Turkish-Armenian conflict.

Historians reject the genocide label: This may explain why more than 69 North American scholars categorically rejected Armenian characterizations of genocide, noting that the non-partisan and reliable evidence unearthed so far points to “…inter-communal warfare fought by Christian and Muslims irregulars…” A majority of European historians who specialize on this topic also reject or criticize this label.

The Malta Trials refuted Armenian claims 90 years ago: If you had heard about the Malta Trials by the Crown Courts in 1919-1921, that never got off the ground due to lack of evidence to support the outrageous Armenian claims, you would not have signed that deceptive edict. ( For your information, the British exiled 144 Ottoman leaders to Malta as war crimes suspects, while scouring the Ottoman, British and American archives for proof and came up empty handed. This paper might explain more: The Armenian Issue: Why The “Genocide” Label Doesn’t Fit )

Britain does not recognize Armenian claims as genocide: You would do well to, at least, heed the advice and policy of Her Majesty’s Government when this same issue was raised in the same biased manner, again with total disregard for the other side of the story.

Here is a journey down the history, a collection of brief educational glimpses into the past:

1894

“…The aim of the Armenian revolutionaries is to foment outbreaks, firstly to induce the Ottomans to react to their violence and secondly to encourage the foreign powers to intervene…” Source: Letter of the British Ambassador Currie to the Foreign Office, on March the 28th of 1894, British Blue Book, N°6, p 57

1896

” …The Dashnaks and Hunchaks have terrorized their own countrymen, they have stirred up the Muslim people with their thefts and insanities, and have paralyzed all efforts made to carry out reforms; all the events that have taken place in Anatolia are the responsibility of the crimes committed by the Armenian revolutionary committees…” Source: Williams, The British vice-consul, writing from Van. (March 4, 1896, British Blue Book, Nr. 8 1896, p.108

1915

“…Concerning the Armenian revolutionaries’ tactics, one cannot expect to think up something more diabolic. Killing Moslems in order to punish innocents, robbing in the middle of the night villages that have just paid, the same day, their taxes. (…) The Armenian revolutionaries prefer robbing their own coreligionists rather than fighting against their enemy ; it’s in order to make their compatriots murder that the Armenian anarchists in Constantinople do bomb attacks…” Source: Sir Mark Sykes, “The Caliph’s Last Heritage”, London , 1915, p 409-418

1922

“…I was being employed by His Majesty’s Government to compile all available documents on the present treatment of the Armenians by the Turkish Government in a ‘Blue Book,’ which was duly published and distributed as war-propaganda!…” Source: Arnold Joseph Toynbee, “The Western Question in Greece and Turkey : a Study in the Contact of Civilizations,” Boston , Houghton Mifflin, 1922, p. 50.

1923

“…In some towns containing ten Armenian houses and thirty Turkish houses, it was reported that 40,000 people were killed, about 10,000 women were taken to the harem, and thousands of children left destitute; and the city university destroyed, and the bishop killed. It is a well-known fact that even in the last war the native Christians, despite the Turkish cautions, armed themselves and fought on the side of the Allies. In these conflicts, they were not idle, but they were well supplied with artillery, machine guns and inflicted heavy losses on their enemies…” Source: George M. Lamsa, a missionary known for his research on Christianity, “The Secret of the Near East,” The Ideal Press, Philadelphia (1923), page 133

1928

“…A circular was prepared by the War ministry asking the officers to report on the misdeeds of the enemy. According to this circular, exactness was not an essential condition: probability was enough. (…) The most popular lies in England and in America were those concerning atrocities. No war can do without it. One considers that to libel the enemy is a patriotic duty…” Arthur Ponsoby (British Deputy from 1910 till 1918, his book published in 1928 describes propaganda methods used during First World war), Falsehood in War-Time , New York , 1971, p 20-22

1928

“Few Americans who mourn, and justly, the miseries of the Armenians, are aware that till the rise of nationalistic ambitions, beginning with the ‘seventies, the Armenians were the favored portion of the population of Turkey, or that in the Great War, they traitorously turned Turkish cities over to the Russian invader; that they boasted of having raised an army of one hundred and fifty thousand men to fight a civil war, and that they burned at least a hundred Turkish villages and exterminated their population…It is at least time that Americans ceased to be deceived by propaganda…” Source: John Dewey, American professor, The Turkish Tragedy, The New Republic, November 12, 1928

1936

“…Those who in England are loudest in their sympathy with the aspirations of a(n Armenian) people ‘rightly struggling to be free’ can hardly have realized the atrocious methods of terrorism and blackmail by which a handful of desperados, as careful of their own safety as they are reckless of the lives of others, have too successfully coerced their unwilling compatriots into complicity with an utterly hopeless conspiracy…” Source: Lord Warkworth, after paying a visit to Van. ( William Langer, The Diplomacy of Imperialism.)

1964

“…(The Dashnaks)’ aim was by crimes and assassinations to invite Turkish reprisals and massacres, and thus create an international scandal that would attract the intervention of the other powers…” Source: David Thompson, “ Europe Since Napoleon” (Alfred A. Knopf, 1964, 2nd. Ed.)

1976

“… The deafening drumbeat of the propaganda, and the sheer lack of sophistication in argument which comes from preaching decade after decade to a convinced and emotionally committed audience, are the major handicaps of Armenian historiography of the diaspora today…” Source: Dr. Gwynne Dyer, a London-based independent journalist with global exposure, 1976

1999

“…The British Government had condemned the massacres at the time. But in the absence of unequivocal evidence that the Ottoman administration took a specific decision to eliminate the Armenians under their control at that time, British governments have not recognized those events as indications of genocide… Nor do we believe it is the business of governments of today to review events of over 80 years ago, with a view to pronouncing on them. The events of 1915-16 remain a painful issue in relation to two states with which we enjoy excellent relations…” Source: Foreign Office spokesman, Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale, AP News, April14, 1999

2001

“…The Government, in line with previous British Governments, have judged the evidence not to be sufficiently unequivocal to persuade us that these events should be categorised as genocide as defined by the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide, a convention which was drafted in response to the Holocaust and is not retrospective in application. The interpretation of events in Eastern Anatolia in 1915-16 is still the subject of genuine debate amongst historians.” Source: Baroness Scotland of Asthal, expressing the position of the British Government’s on the alleged Armenian genocide in a written response to a question at the House of Lords, February 7, 2001

2001

“…The British government of that time and those that followed considered the massacres of 1915-1916 as a horrifying tragedy. We understand the strong feelings for this problem, given the human losses of both parties. But we do not believe that proofs put forward give evidence that those events must be classified as “genocide” as defined by the 1948 Convention of the United Nations on genocide. (…) The events of 1915-1916 constitute a big tragedy, during which the two parties underwent very heavy losses…” Source: Official Statement by the Embassy of Great Britain in Ankara , July 23, 2001.

…

The Armenian claims of genocide were never brought to court and, therefore, a court verdict a la Nuremberg does not exist. By voting yes on a controversial claim that totally ignores Armenian revolts, terrorism, treason, territorial demands and their Turkish victims during WWI, you are lending credence to unsubstantiated, exaggerated, falsified, and fabricated accusations.

Do you really believe a political body is the place to resolve historical conflicts?

Do you think academia with its research capability and/or legal realm with its “due process” expertise would be better equipped to handle such controversies ?

Do you agree that taking one side in a complex historical conflict is offensive, and unfair to the other side?

Do you see now how grave a mistake it is to honor one side of the story with an official stamp of approval, while totally ignoring the other? Would you like such “lynching” done to your country?

In a democracy, history is made by political institutions but written by historians. The Blois Appeal of 2008 in France , signed by several hundreds of historians, from Europe, North America , and elsewhere, says: “… History must not be a slave to contemporary politics nor can it be written on the command of competing memories. In a free state , no political authority has the right to define historical truth and to restrain the freedom of the historian with the threat of penal sanctions… ”

Muslim, mostly Turkish, victims of Armenian revolutionaries and the treasonous Armenian volunteers of Russian, French and Greek armies are documented in Ottoman archives, Russian archives , American archives (and also Niles & Sutherland,) French archives (Paul Bernard, Six mois en Cilicie, Aix-en-Provence: éditions du Feu, 1929,) and even in Armenian sources
(Haig Shiroyan, an Ottoman Armenian wrote in his Memories: “…The Russian victorious armies, reinforced by Armenian volunteers, had slaughtered every Turk they could find, destroyed every house they penetrated…” Smiling Through the Tears, New York , 1954, p. 186).

The alleged “Armenian genocide” was popularized by Armenian terrorism of 1973-1991. The ARF controlled one of the two principal Armenian terrorist groups:

a) “Justice Commandos for the Armenian Genocide/Armenian Revolutionary Army”

(Francis P. Hyland, Armenian Terrorism: the Past, the Present, the Prospects, Boulder-San Francisco-Oxford: Westview Press, 1991, pp. 61-62; br>
Gaïdz Minassian, Guerre et terrorisme arméniens, Paris : Presses universitaires de France, 2002, pp. 28-37 and 106-109; br>

Yves Ternon, La Cause arménienne, Paris : Le Seuil, 1983, pp. 218-224.)

Scotland Yard banned Hrair Maroukian, the leader of ARF from 1972 to 1994, from entering British soil in Autumn 1984, because British police considered him as the real chief of JCAG/ARA (Michael M. Gunter, “Pursuing the Just Cause of their People”. A Study of Contemporary Armenian Terrorism, Westport – New York – London , Greenwood Press, 1986, p. 111.)

The JCAG/ARA killed around thirty innocent victims and bombed the offices of Turkish Airlines in London airport, on May 24, 1978 and even the offices of British airways in Madrid airport, on January 20, 1980.

The ARF continues to glorify its terrorists, including Hampig Sassounian, jailed since 1982 for the assassination of the Turkish general consul in Los Angeles , Kemal Arikan.

Vicken Hovsepian, sentenced in 1984 by an US court to six years of prison for an attempt of bombing is a member of ARF the leader of the party in USA .

b) Another Armenian terrorist group, Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA), was actively supported by the Union of Armenian students of UK , who published a pro-ASALA newspaper in London , from 1978 to 1988: Kaytzer.

ASALA killed around forty innocent victims (including at least eight Turkish diplomats), and wounded many more;

ASALA terrorist Zaven Bedrosian was sentenced to eight years of prison by a British court in August 1983, for illegal possession of explosives and weapons, and conspiracy. Mr. Bedrosian admitted during his trial that he wanted to take the Turkish ambassador in London hostage with the hope of exchanging him with the ASALA murderer Levon Ekmekjian, one of the two perpetrators of attack in Ankara airport, in August 1982 (nine tourists were killed, more than 70 wounded.)

ASALA claimed his solidarity with Irish Republican Army (IRA) against “British fascism” (sic).

Ara Toranian, former spokesman of ASALA from 1976 to 1983, who shows no remorse for his violent past, is currently co-chairman of Coordination Council of France’s Armenian Associations.

I hope that you will realize what a grave mistake you have made by taking the words of Armenian propagandists, falsifiers, crooks and terrorists at face value.

…

In summary, if I could manage to raise a grain of doubt in your mind that the Armenian narrative may not be the whole story and that there might be another side, equally ghastly and genuine, where Armenians are the victimizers not the victims, then I consider my mission is accomplished. Thank you for reading.

Respectfully Yours,

Armenian genocide victims’ descendants may sue, court rules

Media Watch — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 19:16:44 +0000

In a stunning move, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reverses itself and decides that insurance companies can be sued for unpaid claims over the atrocities.

By Carol J. Williams, Los Angeles Times

December 11, 2010

Descendants of Armenian victims of genocide at the hands of Ottoman Turks can sue insurance companies for unpaid claims over the atrocities, a federal appeals court ruled Friday in a rare reversal.

The same three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said in August 2009 that lawsuits were barred by a federal government policy against legal reference to the Armenian genocide despite laws in California and 41 other states recognizing the massacre of 1.2 million Armenians that began in 1915 amid the chaotic collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

“There is no clearly established, express federal policy forbidding state references to the Armenian genocide,” the judges decided on reconsideration in a 2-1 ruling.

Brian S. Kabateck, an attorney for the Armenian American heirs from Glendale and elsewhere, said the decision was “extraordinarily unusual” and could open the door to other unsettled issues from the massacre.

The judges’ ruling 16 months ago was also split 2 to 1, with Senior Judges David R. Thompson and Dorothy W. Nelson concluding that a California law passed in 2000 recognizing the genocide — and providing the legal basis for the insurance claims — was an attempt to undercut the president’s authority in foreign affairs.

Congress has considered resolutions three times in the last decade that would have provided official recognition of the genocide. Each time, the White House stepped in to urge that the bills be scuttled out of fear that passage would damage relations with Turkey, whose government disputes that a genocide took place. Last year, Thompson and Nelson alluded to those thwarted resolutions as constituting a federal policy against reference to genocide.

Nelson apparently changed her mind. She sided in Friday’s ruling with Judge Harry Pregerson, who had dissented from the majority last year, saying the state had a right to regulate its insurance industry.

The new ruling cited contradictions in federal policy regarding references to genocide, including moments of silence held in Congress to remember the Armenian victims and then-Sen. Barack Obama urging voters during his presidential campaign to “recognize the horrific acts carried out against the Armenian people as genocide.”

The Armenian American plaintiffs had petitioned for rehearing and were notified that it was granted 14 months ago, Kabateck said. But they heard nothing from the appeals court to lead them to expect the stunning reversal, said the lawyer, whose grandparents were victims of the atrocities.

Neil Michael Soltman, who represented the German insurance companies that were sued, said he was baffled by the reversal.

“There is absolutely nothing in the opinion to indicate why there was a change from last year — no suggestion of a new law or new facts or a new federal policy that wasn’t there when they issued their decision last year,” he said.

Soltman said his clients were weighing their options, including a request for a rehearing by a full 11-judge panel of the appeals court.

carol.williams@latimes.com

Comments

mymovie at 10:30 AM December 11, 2010 If your family was murdered you would ask for the same wyattearp at 10:09 AM December 11, 2010 Give the Armenians what they have given to the World therough out History. Death, Deception and Selfishness. Americans shoiuld be paid reperations from all of the Foreign Interlopers simply for being forced to suffer through the Tragic Mess they call their cultures while they Rob, Scam, and hustle America. Dick Decent at 8:36 AM December 11, 2010 Yeah, where my reparations be at? Why can’t a white man get a break, all de armos and julios and afros be keepin a brotha down.
Where my check be at? I need new ashtrays for my salvage Mercedes.

Three Turks Sentenced in Switzerland for Denying Armenian Genocide

Media Watch — Sun, 03 Oct 2010 13:15:54 +0000

BERN, Switzerland (News.am)–A Swiss court has ruled against three Turkish-born residents for denial of the Armenian Genocide in a case filed by the Chairman of the Switzerland-Armenia Union, Sargis Shahinyan.

Denial of the Armenian Genocide is illegal under Swiss law.

Ali Mercan and two others were found guilty of violating the Swiss Law on Preventing Racism and are obliged to pay 30 thousand Swiss francs and are facing 150 days imprisonment.

The defendants appealed the verdict, but the Swiss Federal Court reiterated the legitimacy of the ruling.

Mercan has said the defendants will appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.

======================================================================

Swiss Court Confirms Conviction of Turks for Denying Armenian Genocide

ISTANBUL (Hurriyet)–Zurich’s Court of Appeals confirmed Tuesday the initial verdict of a Swiss district court that ruled three Swiss citizens of Turkish descent were guilty of denying the Armenian Genocide, the daily Vatan reported Wednesday.

The defendants, Ali Mercan, Hasan Kemahli and Ethem Kayali, had called the Armenian Genocide a lie at a meeting in 2007 in the Swiss district of Winterthur. Mercan is the foreign representative of the Turkey-based Workers Party, while Kemahli and Kayali are members of the Ataturkcu Dusunce Dernegi, a Turkey-based think tank.

In March 2007, Dogu Perinck, the leader of the Workers Party, was similarly found guilty by a Swiss district court of conscious violation of Swiss laws against genocide denial with a racist motivation and was fined 12,000 Swiss francs (17,000 Turkish Liras). The verdict was confirmed by the Vaud cantonal appeal court on June 19 of the same year, and by the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland on Dec. 12, 2007.

“We knew the decision would come out like that,” said the lawyers of the defendants, according to the report by daily Vatan.

Meanwhile the Swiss government is mediating between Turkey and Armenia for a historical normalization of relations. Turkey, which officially denies it’s Genocide of the Armenians in 1915, severed ties with Armenia in the early 90s and has been blockading the Caucasus country since.

The two countries signed protocols last October to end the nearly two decade blockade. Yet the process has hit the rocks since the Armenian constitutional court’s ruling that the interpretation and application of the protocols should be in compliance with both the Armenian constitution and declaration of independence, which call for the international recognition of the Armenian genocide.

Though the court ruled the protocols to be legal, Turkey has reacted angrily to the decision, threatening to pull out of the rapprochement talks. It argues the ruling constitutes a prejudice in the workings of a historical commission outlined in the agreements. Ankara has made no secret of its intentions to use the historical commission to question the veracity of the Armenian Genocide.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

for “Three Turks Sentenced in Switzerland for Denying Armenian Genocide”

vartan says:

October 2, 2010 at 8:32 am

A country that is very smart if the United states was as smart as the swiss the deficit would be gone over night. Charge every ignorant denialist with $10,000 and puff there goes the deficit…….

Reply
Simon G says:

October 2, 2010 at 1:52 pm

Bravo , Bravo , Bravo , Good bless Switzerland

Reply
Nairian says:

October 2, 2010 at 7:14 pm

That’s good that the Swiss government aligning themselves with the French government are doing the right thing! Isn’t it high time that the American government also does the right thing and calls the Armenian Genocide, a Genocide?

Reply

for “Swiss Court Confirms Conviction of Turks for Denying Armenian Genocide”

Nairian says:

February 11, 2010 at 7:46 pm

That is why you cannot negotiate with the turk. The turk knows one thing; after commiting a Genocide, to cheat and lie until the end. Pay millions of dollars to US Congressmen to do the dirty work for them and continue the trend of the Genocide.

Reply
Grigor Markaryan says:

February 11, 2010 at 8:46 pm

These so called civilized Turkish Swiss citizens goofed! The Turks will pretend to be European and hide and deny their Genocidal past. Turkey’s joining of the European Union will surely mean end of European Union.

Reply
Kiazer Souze says:

February 11, 2010 at 9:25 pm

Good, I hope they clean the EU’s urinals and toilets for a lifetime as punishment.

Reply
manooshag says:

February 12, 2010 at 8:26 am

Hye, the Swiss involvement in the Protocols, in my book, sees Swiss leaning to the Turkish side of the page.
A Turkey – which has committed Genocides – yet even today, who has not yet emulated or joined with any of the civilized nations in any manner or pursuit – shall never be trusted, in any manner, shape or form.
Especially – ‘alliances’ – which the Turks themselves have certainly proven NOT to observe – at all!
Turks’ history with ‘alliances’ are almost ridiculous – were not that these dealings shall have been serious and with great honesty and intent between civilized nations of our world…
But with a Turkey these ‘alliances’ are used, over and over, as needed, as just another of the Turks’ PLOYS… The civilized world is serious – the Turks are as children, playing games! Hence, the Armenians watch as also the world watches, what’s next Turkey?
Manooshag

Reply
Freddy Krueger says:

March 10, 2010 at 12:31 am

All I can say is this is simply supression of free speech and we all as human beings have a right to debate about issues and if someone goes to jail for criticising something, that is automatically supression of free speech. I am a supporter of lifting Article 301 by the way. Turkey needs to lift Article 301 and the EU needs to stop throwing people into jail just because they criticise the Armenian issue and the Holocaust issue, we are all entitled to free speech. Stories are not one-sided as you know. T

United States laid ground for Ergenekon “Deep State” in Turkey

Haluk Demirbag — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 04:36:44 +0000

WMR has discovered a formerly Secret document from the U.S. Department of State that confirms the United States not only supported the Turkish military coup that ousted the nation’s democratically-elected government in 1980 but actively supported the military-imposed Turkish Constitution as “reformist.”

The citizens of Turkey recently voted in a referendum and approved 26 constitutional amendments that will transform Turkey into a democratic state without the threat of the military and national security state-affiliated judiciary trumping the power of the Parliament and the people. Neocons have condemned the referendum as a threat to secularism in Turkey and a move to an Islamic state. However, the neocons and their allies in Israel are concerned that a Mossad -and CIA-imposed Turkish “Deep State” has finally seen its power largely destroyed with the impending adoption of a new Turkish Constitution. The referendum, which passed with 58 percent of the vote, is a victory for the Justice and Development Party (AKP) of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Many of the roots of the creation of the most recent variant of the Turkish Deep State, known as Ergenekon, can be seen in the State Department policy paper dated September 5, 1981, and titled “USG Policy toward Turkey.” When the State Department document was drafted, Turkey’s military junta leader, General Kenan Evren, was drafting the present Turkish Constitution. The 1981 Turkish military draft Constitution’s “reforms” were referred to in the State Department policy document’s author Lawrence Eagleburger, the Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs: “It is too early to judge whether the fundamental GOT reforms, now in place or in prospect, will succeed.” The document also talks about the “relief” provided to the United States by the 1980 military coup: “The military takeover of September 1980 brought temporary relief and for the moment broke the back of radical movements — including pro-Islamic ones — which had come to the fore in the 1970s.”

Eagleburger signaled his and the Reagan administration’s support for the Turkish junta because of the same bogus reasons that neocons today criticize the Erdogan government: the bogeyman of Turkish Islamic political power. Eagleburger warned that Turkey could “drift away from NATO and Western-style government; alignment with Middle East states which supply oil and markets; possibly even neutralism growing out of accommodations with the USSR.” Today, the neocons, Israelis, and their Ergenekon allies in Turkey argue the same points in demonizing the Turkish government: that Turkey is drifting from NATO, that it is turning to oil suppliers and markets like Iran, and has a growing relationship with Russia.

Eagleburger then outlines how the Reagan administration would cement U.S. ties with Turkey to prevent the above scenarios from being realized. He writes: “ . . . the Turkish-American relationship has no natural constituency in terms of shared history, economic interdependence, ethic or family ties. The absence of a ‘Turkish lobby’ in the United States is indicative.” Two of the recipients of the Eagleburger document would later help fill the void and help create the American Turkish Council (ATC), a lobby group patterned after their friends at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Those two recipients of the Eagleburger document were Richard Perle, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy, and Paul Wolfowitz, Director of Policy Planning at the State Department. Other recipients of the Eagleburger policy document on Turkey included Robert Hormats, the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and Business Affairs [and who is now the Undersecretary of State for Economic, Business, and Agricultural Affairs under Hillary Clinton]; Ronald Spiers, the director of the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, former U.S. ambassador to Turkey from 1977 to 1980; and the prospective U.S. ambassador to Pakistan; Richard Burt, the Director of Politico-Military Affairs for the State Department; and Nicholas Veliotes, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs.

The nature of the bilateral U.S.-Turkish relations were described as a “best effort” to help Turkey in all respects, including an “understanding” of Turkey’s position in Greek-Turkish issues and dealing with “Armenian terrorism.” In 1981, Armenia was a constituent republic of the USSR. Today, it is “Kurdish terrorism” that plagues Turkey since Armenia is now an independent state with a natural and politically-powerful constituency in the United States. The Eagleburger document describes the Evren junta as perceiving the Reagan administration as making a “best effort” in providing financial support to Turkey from Washington’s “weighing in” on the “International Monetary Fund, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the Saudis, and other potential donors.”

Eagleburger also warns of “nettlesome” issues that could adversely affect U.S. relations with the Turkish junta, for example, “Congressional badgering on Cyprus, on relations with Greece, on the pace of return to democracy, and an Armenian niche in the proposed Holocaust Museum.”

The United States, through an alliance with Israel and its influence peddlers in Washington, would ensure that the Turkish pace of democracy would not return to normal until the recent approval by the Turkish people of a new constitution that will eradicate the Turkish junta’s military “reforms” championed by Eagleburger and his band of proto-neocons in the Reagan administration in 1981. Attempts over the past eight years by Ergenekon to overthrow the AKP government failed and with the new constitutional changes, Ergenekon’s and Israel’s ability to influence events in Turkish politics have been curtailed, save for the continuing threat of covert Israeli provocation of terrorism involving the Kurds.

Source: Wayne Madsen Report, Sept 18, 2010

Turkish Forum » ASALA

Turkish Kiss to Sarkozy and Valerie

Break or save Franco-Turkish relations?

Sassounian’s column of Dec. 1, 2011

The Misuse of “Memoirs of Count Bernstorff” in Armenian Nationalist Publications

London Conference: Prejudice, Deception, and the Armenian Question

Dear Sir / Madam,

You are kindly invited to attend our annual conference on the 4th February 2011 on the subject of “Turkish- Armenian Relations”, details of which are attached.

We very much hope that you will be able to attend the conference.

Yours sincerely,

FTA UK

——————————————————————————————————————

You are kindly invited to attend an evening conference entitled

‘TURKISH – ARMENIAN RELATIONS’

Friday, 4th February 2011, 6 pm for 6.30 pm

Venue:

Sheikh Zayed Theatre,

London School of Economics,

New Academic Building,

Lincoln’s Inn Fields,

London WC2A 2AE

GUEST SPEAKER

Prof Justin McCarthy

“Prejudice, Deception, and the Armenian Question”

CHAIRED BY

Prof Şevket Pamuk

* * * * *

Organised by

THE FEDERATION OF TURKISH ASSOCIATIONS UK

www.turkishfederationuk.com

* * * * *

Non – Members Welcome

Attendance is free but by registration only

Please register at

turkishfederationuk@yahoo.co. uk

or telephone / text 07788 908 803

* * * * *

Prof Justin McCarthy

Prof Sevket Pamuk

Supported By Turkish Forum World Turkish Alliance UK

Suprime Court Rejects The ATAA & TCA Sponsored Genocide Denial into Public Schools

Letter to the Leader of the Ealing Council

Armenian genocide victims’ descendants may sue, court rules

In a stunning move, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reverses itself and decides that insurance companies can be sued for unpaid claims over the atrocities.

Comments

Three Turks Sentenced in Switzerland for Denying Armenian Genocide

Swiss Court Confirms Conviction of Turks for Denying Armenian Genocide

for “Three Turks Sentenced in Switzerland for Denying Armenian Genocide”

for “Swiss Court Confirms Conviction of Turks for Denying Armenian Genocide”

United States laid ground for Ergenekon “Deep State” in Turkey

You are kindly invited to attend our annual conference on the 4^th February 2011 on the subject of “Turkish- Armenian Relations”, details of which are attached.

*** * * * ***