Armenian Genocide (?)

[Vermillion_Hawk]

bull****

I don't believe your claim that 98% of Turks are genocide deniers.

As for the rest of it, as I recall one of those historians was working for the Turkish ambassador at the time, and most, if not all of the others were in the pockets of the Turkish government in one way or another. They're also by no means an exhaustive list of historians of the Middle East, as you say, since including a more diverse selection would then overlap with those who do, in fact, claim that the Armenian genocide should be recognized.

The joint commission proposal is also laughable. Why would the Armenian government ever give legitimacy to a supposed scholarly effort joined by the Turkish government? A government which still spends millions of dollars internationally lobbying against the recognition of the Armenian genocide and funding studies to give tools like you talking points?

If "Turkey" has nothing to fear in its past then why is it that, at the mere mention of an event which has achieved academic consensus elsewhere, you get people, like yourself, crying out and spewing a load of nationalistic bull****? You've eaten the propaganda down to the very core and it's pretty disgusting to honestly encounter someone attempting a pathetic defense of a would-be ethnonationalist state by resorting to tactics which place them in the same category as Iran's government and neo-Nazis. Since you're apparently so concerned with Turkey's international image, that's hardly a good look.

 

[KhergitLancer80]

bull****

I don't believe your claim that 98% of Turks are genocide deniers.

As for the rest of it, as I recall one of those historians was working for the Turkish ambassador at the time, and most, if not all of the others were in the pockets of the Turkish government in one way or another. They're also by no means an exhaustive list of historians of the Middle East, as you say, since including a more diverse selection would then overlap with those who do, in fact, claim that the Armenian genocide should be recognized.

The joint commission proposal is also laughable. Why would the Armenian government ever give legitimacy to a supposed scholarly effort joined by the Turkish government? A government which still spends millions of dollars internationally lobbying against the recognition of the Armenian genocide and funding studies to give tools like you talking points?

If "Turkey" has nothing to fear in its past then why is it that, at the mere mention of an event which has achieved academic consensus elsewhere, you get people, like yourself, crying out and spewing a load of nationalistic bull****? You've eaten the propaganda down to the very core and it's pretty disgusting to honestly encounter someone attempting a pathetic defense of a would-be ethnonationalist state by resorting to tactics which place them in the same category as Iran's government and neo-Nazis. Since you're apparently so concerned with Turkey's international image, that's hardly a good look.

Bull**** ? If I did this arrogance I would get at least 40% warning from flaming. I reported you, lets see if they indeed dont have double standards.
I dont come to this kind of rudeness okay ? Dont do these to me, just dont do it to me. Do it to those who are fine with it. I am not fine with it and I reported you.
For me your point of view is biased and absurd and I am the right but I dont be rude and call your opinion bull**** okay ?

1- While saying 98% it was my opinion I did not look at a countrywide poll on the matter. I looked for a poll on the internet but I couldnt find one. This was based on my experience both in real life and people in internet platforms. In real life I literally met with noone and in internet I only see some apologist neo-liberals living in Europe with double citizenship or pro-Pkk kurds on some specific websites, apart from these neither Kemalists nor Islamists are saying I recognise it.
I wonder what you thought about this, like half of us believe in it ? They teach us the matter in high school and we only learn the Turkish point of view, just like how you only learn armenian point of view. Though our people, because western media is dominant in World, eventually learn the other point of view while you never learn ours.

2- Turks suck at lobbying I dont know how you can even claim this ? Even these last events proved it greatly, not being able to tell our course in the operation and whole World labelling it as Turks ethnically cleansing Kurds proved this. One could be labelled this wrong when being this right. When Ottoman Empire moved armenians to Syria etc after Ottomans lost WW1 allies started invading Turkey, French invaded south and even formed an army from armenians. They called it legion d'orientale. When they got defeated and left with French they went to France with them and since then armenians have a very strong diaspora in France.
So strong that they made it illegal to deny armenian genocide. Even such an authority historian like Bernard Lewis because he also said a lie, they symbolically charged him with 1 penny and denied his access to French soil forever.

Not to mention Armenian lobbies in US. These are the armenians mostly who were deported to Syria but didnt stay there and went to US for job opportunty. In Los Angeles they are crazy. They are extremely Turkophobic. Once one of the US state was going to build an Atatürk statue, they resisted to it like as if they are resisting to a foreign power occupying their land. Even though Atatürk even according to those who say the genocide happened was a low rank soldier at the time and had nothing to do. They hilariously claimed he was US' enemy in WW2 which is sooo funny because he died in 1938 and Trkey stayed neutral in WW2.
actually we formerly even declared war on Germany symbolically.

Turks are just unorganised mostly worker class who dont have schools or foundations or anything unlike armenians. So saying Turkish diaspora is just another propaganda of armenian diaspora.

If there was a Turkish diaspora you would at least heard the name Khocali genocide but who talks about it anyway ? Ironically armenians even tried to use the killed azerbaijani Turks photos as ''armenian genocide'' proof.

Same with Switzerland, they also made it illegal but Dogu Perincek went there called it a lie, got sued and showed the court there is no evidence regarding it, won, and today you can call it a lie in Switzerland.

3- Are you actually claiming, these historians I gave examples of, received bribes from Turkish government ?!? You literally want it to be true dont you ? Dont lie you would love it to be true, there is no other explanation to this.

4-

The joint commission proposal is also laughable. Why would the Armenian government ever give legitimacy to a supposed scholarly effort joined by the Turkish government? A government which still spends millions of dollars internationally lobbying against the recognition of the Armenian genocide and funding studies to give tools like you talking points?

Thats one lame excuse lolololol !!!
Laughable ? Yes I agree because its denial shows armenians real worry isnt the history itself but politics. If I were armenia and the genocide was indeed true I would accept this simply to prevent Turks having a leverage against me when the topic is opened. Turkey used this fact on courts including the Dogu Perincek one to my knowledge and armenians werent able to say anything against it.

On the other hand if again I were armenia and the genocide is a lie(which it is) I would keep my archives closed and say why would I give legitimacy to supposed scholarly effort joined by the Turkish government.

Well you have the advantage to destroy this effort (if you indeed speak the truth) ?

5- In western countries they even approach armenian terrorist organisation asala as something justified. I bet you never heard about them did you ? This organisation constantly hunted down and martyred our diplomats in foreign countries for years. Just two weeks ago an armenian boxer didnt stop choking a Turkish boxer even though the referee got between.
https://www.news1.news/tr/2019/10/armenian-athlete-wanted-to-kill-turkish-fighter-batuhan-akduman.html
This is how much hate they feel towards Turks. They raise their children traumatised by telling all those fake stories.
In los angeles in every month they burn Turkish flags, spiritually support PKK etc. We believe when one armenian kid borns before saying mommy he/she says CURSE ON TURKEY (metaphorically)!

6- There is no academic concensus please stop spreading lies, I listed you the most authority middle east historians of this century you still dont even back down one step !

7- Well when you constantly image us as the wrong side, not even listening for even 1 second, not even giving a look in your mind to our point of view your look doesnt seem very appealing to us neither.

You look like just another western claiming your media unlike everyone others spread only truth, believing whoever speaks laudest and backed by your corrupt politicans. Believe me you dont really have a very appealing look on our eyes neither

 

[Vermillion_Hawk]

1- While saying 98% it was my opinion I did not look at a countrywide poll on the matter. I looked for a poll on the internet but I couldnt find one. This was based on my experience both in real life and people in internet platforms. In real life I literally met with noone and in internet I only see some apologist neo-liberals living in Europe with double citizenship or pro-Pkk kurds on some specific websites, apart from these neither Kemalists nor Islamists are saying I recognise it.
I wonder what you thought about this, like half of us believe in it ? They teach us the matter in high school and we only learn the Turkish point of view, just like how you only learn armenian point of view. Though our people, because western media is dominant in World, eventually learn the other point of view while you never learn ours.

You can't claim to speak for Turks on the whole by using things like "our" point of view and such without actually proving this to me. The thing about any high school history curriculum is that when it comes to national history it will at best whitewash and at worst actively spin what the rest of the world would consider to be pretty awful stuff into positive moments of "nation-building". The best you can do is use what you've learned as a lens to look critically at events by incorporating other sources, and not instead cherrypicking ones that prove your viewpoint specifically. It's not "the Western viewpoint" versus "the Turkish viewpoint", it's more like critical analysis versus nationalistic drivel.

Of course, a conflicting dichotomy is much more useful if you're an idiot and you don't like critical analysis.

2- Turks suck at lobbying I dont know how you can even claim this ?

Taken from this source:

Turkey, which shares some interests with the Middle East countries, spent nearly $1.7 million in 2009 to lobby American officials on Turkish and Middle Eastern policy through the firms of Richard A. Gephardt, a former House leader, Mr. Livingston and other prominent lobbyists.

And that's only the tip of the iceberg. A casual Wikipedia search would show you more but unfortunately, as I recall you need some workarounds to access it because your benevolent government has shielded you from information which would be harmful to the average Turk, and of course because Wikipedia is the puppet of the Western devil.

Turks are just unorganised mostly worker class who dont have schools or foundations or anything unlike Armenian

Where do you come up with this absolute garbage?

3- Are you actually claiming, these historians I gave examples of, received bribes from Turkish government ?!? You literally want it to be true dont you ? Dont lie you would love it to be true, there is no other explanation to this.

Yep, and if you bothered to read about it any further than what I can only assume state-run media is telling you about it then you would know that the situation isn't exactly positive for Turkey. Most of those academics are discredited in one way or another.

4-Laughable ? Yes I agree

It's laughable because the rest of the world has come to a consensus whereas Turkey is trying to both invalidate all existing opinions on the matter by claiming the question is still open while also having significant influence on whatever result the commission would come to, which would no doubt be favourable to them. It's the equivalent of Iran inviting Israel to debate the validity of the Holocaust.

5 - This organisation constantly hunted down and martyred

It's right when you start saying stuff like that that I know it's entirely pointless to argue since you've got this us vs. them mindset, and everyone who dies on the Turkish side is some glorious martyr fighting against these dirty terrorists. Is terrorism wrong? Yes. Is what the Turkish state does also wrong? Absolutely.

6- There is no academic concensus please stop spreading lies, I listed you the most authority middle east historians of this century you still dont even back down one step !

You listed the ones that are most favourable to your personal politics. Of course, all the other ones are in the pocket of the rich Jewish Armenian international conspiracy, right? Do you realize how ridiculous the things you've said so far are? There's some irony in that you're worried about someone spreading lies. Why would you be worried about that?

7- Well when you constantly image us as the wrong side, not even listening for even 1 second, not even giving a look in your mind to our point of view your look doesnt seem very appealing to us neither.

You look like just another western claiming your media unlike everyone others spread only truth, believing whoever speaks laudest and backed by your corrupt politicans. Believe me you dont really have a very appealing look on our eyes neither

Difference being I don't give one single **** what you think of me. Pretty much everything you've posted has been a load of complete bull**** spread by someone who has completely drank the Kool-Aid. You have been convinced that everyone is out to get Turkey which is only seeking to defend its own interests, jumping at shadows like this ridiculous idea of an international Armenian conspiracy. I don't think anyone really cares enough about Turkey to conspire against it in the first place.

 

[KhergitLancer80]

You are a very rude hating person, hopefully everyone sees what kind of person you are with this post of yours and act accordingly.

You are also a master of strawman. a blackbelt master. You should apply to a job in New York Times.

it's more like critical analysis versus nationalistic drivel.

Armenians have failed to give even one solid proof on their genocide claim. This aside they were caught red-hand when they fabricated fake evidence, most infamously Talaat Pasha telegrams. Because they do not possess one single solid evidence. They are fooling everyone with some dead body pictures god knows which genocide or war it belongs to. They have nothing ! If they had even 1(one) thing, British would use it in Malta trials. after occupying Istanbul in 1918, they arrested many officials including very high ranking ones. They had the Istanbul, they had access to everything. They even communicated with american observers who went to place in said time. They say it in their archives they failed to find even one thing and even state it turned out to be just armenian civil war propaganda.

Moreover while Turkey's archives are open they refuse to open their archives, they refuse to form a coalition of historians from both sides to investigate !

We have records of Ottoman government punishing neglectful officers during the deportation who led armenians to unsafety ! We have records of government sending medics to them despite being in times of war !

These aside armenian claims are absurd ! The consensus according to those days archives state the armenian number was between 1 -1.5 million. So approximately 1.3 million. armenians claim over 1.5 million armenians were murdered and this isnt even how their claim started. That number increased with time.
Historians believe the number of dead armenians was about 400.000. Compare this to 2 million Turks. This is normal in times of war.
They formed Tashnak and Hinchak comitee and they got armed by Russians. They started ethnic cleansing in eastern Anatolia and also attacked Ottoman army from behind when they were warring with Russian army. Over this the assembly(which included armenians !!) decided to move armenians to somewhere away from Russian front !

along the way vengeful tribes Turks and Kurds attacked them, diseases killed them, faminities killed them etc. But it wasnt a state policy to kill them, the government did not intend to kill them !!! They failed to prove the otherwise, this is why they fabricated fake evidence the Talaat Pasha telegrams, this is why British had to drop charges in Maltese trials despite looking under every stone in Istanbul even consulting american observers ! This is why Dogu Perincek won the lawsuit in Switzerland, if something was proven like Holocoust, it wouldnt be allowed !

There is critical analysis versus nationalistic drivel. But both sides are driven with nationalism, both the armenians and Turks and those who arent profiting from anything those who come to ankara and educated to read and understand Ottoman Turkish share the Turkish point of view.

It's laughable because the rest of the world has come to a consensus

Rest of the world... This shows your mentality very well. You are wrong. W-r-o-n-g. Not saying this because you believe in armenian genocide. I am saying this because you are showing me measure that isnt even remotely related to the subject.

I am telling you, giving you the historians who understand Ottoman Turkish, that came to ankara, opened and reviewed our archives and came to a conclusion; while you are giving me a measure of how politicians worldwide thought on the matter.

One question: Did those politicians who played role in recognising this so called genocide in their countries understand Ottoman alphabet, Ottoman Turkish and came to Turkey and reviewed our archives ?

Forget about the archives, I ask you are they even qualified to read a historical evidence ?

Well, I shall respond this for you They are not. They were either shown or not some irrelevant photos by armenians and like you, quickly convinced themselves. They do not even remotely care about what happened in anatolia some 100 years ago. If they were so humanitarian they would first do something about Ruandan algerian genocides.

These historians I mentioned you, are because of this very valuable. First of all they are historians. They know how to read historical artifacts. They know how to understand whether they are authentic or not. They know if they were fabricated of not. They know what to make of them. Second, they understand. They learnt Ottoman alphabet and language, many middle east alphabets and languages. Third, they are trustworthy. More trustworthy than a politician.

In fact it is said Bernard Lewis was actually (like rest of the World) pretty prejudised against Turks before coming and reading the archives.


So next time before starting with who is analysing critically and who is nationalistically driven measure your place.
You dont have one proof, one single proof. We dont even have to respond to these claims.


I do not miss how terribly you want it to be that the genocide turn out to be true. You trust even in politicians but you automatically, shamelessly assume those historians were all bribed.
If you researched a bit you would understand how hilarious this claim is(and dishonorable) considering the giant carriers these men have.


I did not list the ones I personally favored, you are still trying your best to discredit. These historians were qualified to give an opinion, because unlike your politicians they were educated to be qualified. Can Macron test if a historical artifact is authentic or fabricated ? Can he read and understand Ottoman ?

These men give the desicion of whether recognising it or not. Man like Macron not qualified historians.

You, by putting this as an argument in fact show that you are incapable of engaging in a historical/politic discussion.

Of course, all the other ones are in the pocket of the rich Jewish Armenian international conspiracy, right? Do you realize how ridiculous the things you've said so far are?

Did you just lost your mind ? Heavily breathing or something ? If that is the case I would advise you to take a break.
You literally claimed every single historian I listed, despite having huge carriers(some of them godlike even), were bribed(?) by the Turkish government!!!

am I the conspiracy theorist ? Only thing I claimed was politicians arent qualified to give an opinion and they would support the one serving to their interests best. Is this a conspiracy theory while what you claimed isnt ? I said armenian lobby is strong while you claimed Turkish lobby is strong. So ?

Difference being I don't give one single **** what you think of me.

What on earth made you think I give a **** what you think of me ?
Plus, leave that keyboard instantly, I can sense your neck is getting redder and redder, eyes bursting and breathing heavily without even seeing you.

you've posted has been a load of complete bull****

Reported, hopefully you will pay for this toxic attitude; hopefully mods will suprise me.

Everyone is not out to get Turkey. This issue has just been used as a political leverage against Turkey for many years whenever countries go bad with Turkey. Our geopolitical location also obviously plays a big part.

 

[Vermillion_Hawk]

I don't need a strawman when you're a ridiculous caricature of a nationalist stooge already.

This aside they were caught red-hand when they fabricated fake evidence, most infamously Talaat Pasha telegrams.

You keep repeating this, which is, in itself, a lie. The only organization to claim that the telegrams were false is (what a coincidence) the Turkish Historical Association, and even then it was discredited both at the time and presently. A brief search of the matter shows me that one Altuğ Taner Akçam, a Turkish historian, has claimed that they are real as recently as 2016. I suppose he's part of that mythical 1-2% of Turks. I also just read that he was under investigation for defending a guy who was prosecuted under a law which prohibits "insulting Turkishness". Your country never ceases to amaze me with its utter backwardness in these matters.

Because they do not possess one single solid evidence. They are fooling everyone with some dead body pictures god knows which genocide or war it belongs to.

Like those Holocaust photos that everyone knows were doctored up by the international Jewish conspiracy right?

These aside armenian claims are absurd ! The consensus according to those days archives state the armenian number was between 1 -1.5 million. So approximately 1.3 million. armenians claim over 1.5 million armenians were murdered and this isnt even how their claim started. That number increased with time.
Historians believe the number of dead armenians was about 400.000. Compare this to 2 million Turks. This is normal in times of war.

How could Nazis ever kill 6 million Jews? A ridiculous number, once again the product of the international Jewish conspiracy!

We have records of Ottoman government punishing neglectful officers during the deportation who led armenians to unsafety ! We have records of government sending medics to them despite being in times of war !

Oh yes, the Ottomans wouldn't want the Armenians to get to "unsafety" (lol), just like the Nazis wouldn't have wanted any of the Polish soldiers/officers to meet their end on the road to Katyn. And they even sent medics because they're such a glorious humanitarian enterprise! How could anyone ever accuse them of doing anything wrong? Ignoring the fact, of course, that forced deportation is, itself, a contentious thing to do regardless of whether or not you want to attach the label of genocide, but that's another argument entirely.

You are wrong. W-r-o-n-g.

Repeat the mantra, it won't make it true.

Speaking of historians who speak Ottoman Turkish, I'm personally acquainted with a notable scholar in Ottoman Turkish who I will name on request. She believes that the evidence points to a program of genocide by the Ottomans during World War I. Being able to speak Ottoman Turkish and read the archives, which she has done extensive work on from the early modern period up until World War I, does not necessarily mean that one will walk away thinking that the Armenian genocide was a fake. Far from it.

These historians I mentioned you, are because of this very valuable. First of all they are historians. They know how to read historical artifacts. They know how to understand whether they are authentic or not. They know if they were fabricated of not. They know what to make of them. Second, they understand. They learnt Ottoman alphabet and language, many middle east alphabets and languages. Third, they are trustworthy. More trustworthy than a politician.

I'm an historian. Do you trust me?

You put a lot of stock in a lot of things which mean very little to the question at hand. The court case in Switzerland was won not because the Armenian genocide wasn't real but rather because denying it, in that instance, was protected by free speech laws. While the Holocaust unfortunately sets the standard for how genocides are treated internationally, not all are alike, and you won't find the same legal punishments for denying the Armenian genocide or Holodomor as you would the Holocaust, particularly in Europe.

As for the Malta trials, they mean nothing, too, since your precious Ataturk wanted his prisoners back, and the British Empire wasn't in the mood for another war after the big One. None of what happened there has any relevance for the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the definition of genocide. There weren't even any trials.

I'm basically just talking right now to a puppet dancing on the very long strings of a well-developed propaganda apparatus attempting to justify the failed ethnonationalist state that is Turkey. I'm curious to know where you think this is going to go?

 

[Antoine de Saint-Exupéry]

You are a very rude hating person, hopefully everyone sees what kind of person you are with this post of yours and act accordingly.

he's barely even said anything rude...

隐藏

I'm an historian. Do you trust me?

not any more.

 

[Do not look here]

Oh yes, the Ottomans wouldn't want the Armenians to get to "unsafety" (lol), just like the Nazis wouldn't have wanted any of the Polish soldiers/officers to meet their end on the road to Katyn.

Calling NKVD nazis isn't that much of a stretch, but it's still weird.

 

[KhergitLancer80]

Taner Akçam became a historian now ? Taner Akçam ? You are full of bias, full of it.
He is just a sociologist(even that is disputed for me) He didnt graudate from history, he is a sociology graduant.
You are literally crediting a socialogist.
Even if one puts armenian archives in front of him, he would neither check their authenticity, nor their meaning nor anything. He is not a historian. He is a political tool, a triggerer, way before he went abroad and became interested in so called genocide.
For you whoever says it is real is a historian. Taner is/was a national laughing stock in Turkey way before he went abroad and accepted it.
Now, I cant teach you Ergenekon plot, it is a whole another topic but know this, it was a lawsuit that noone believed, very incredible for Turkish politics and as we expected it turned out to be just lies. Erdogan who said I am the public prosecutor of this lawsuit later said we made a huge mistake.

Taner akçam, a journalist in a dip**** newspaper known as Taraf(it was an anti Kemalist liberal newspaper  funded by  political islamist groups), fully supported this plot.

He is even a founder of adyöd, the founding comitee of PKK. When Kurdish seperatism didnt hold, he shifted to armenian genocide I assume.
He started his carrier as an anti Kemalist libtard, supported terrorism then shifted to armenian genocide topic and while doing so he is fabricating evidence.

He is/was/has been a triggerer, nothing else, a fake intel.

In wikipedia there are ataturk quotes accusing young Turks for genociding armenians when you look for the source it says Taner akçam. When you go to his source it says ataturks interview with los Angeles examiner.

1- The journalist claimed by Taner that supposedly did the interview never existed. emile hilderbrand.
2- In none of ataturks writings, memories anything nor in any Turkish sources nor in american sources there is no mention of such interview.

Armenians and people like you love to praise this guy. I hear him whenever this topic is opened. You cannot imagine how hilarious it is for us when you/armenians discredit those most authority middle east historians and instead credit/praise this sociologist turned journalist(political triggerer) turned historian(!)(again, political triggerer).


Discrediting all these huge names I have given to you without anything while putting Taner akçam in front just shows how ignorant, how sided you are.

You are sided. There is no other explanation to this. You hate Turks. You are Turkophobic. You want your hate to be justified. You want armenian genocide to be real.


Bunch of ad Hominems.


Still attacking, still attacking… Holocoust was/is proven with solid proofs. Neither in Malta trials(despite having control of Istanbul) nor in Switzerland trial the genocide accusers managed to show one solid evidence.

If as you claim, there was even one proof we can count reliable or solid, Swetch court would not make denying armenian genocide legal. Today if a person does the same in Switzerland with Holocaust, he wont be able to win because there is hard evidence everywhere.
There were literally gas facilities ! They industrialised genocide, industrialised it !

You have arrived at 'comparing to Nazi' period in any typical internet discussion.
I wont be answering these because you arent even producing an arguement, you are just mocking and spilling hate !

I see you are too ignorant about Malta trials too.

You obviously opened an armenian website about the so called genocide and copy pasting their stupid responds from there to here ! Taner akçam, throwing **** at Malta trials, throwing **** at Switzerland trial just shows this.

British did not even do a trial because like I said they couldnt find even one credible evidence ! They didnt so to not get mocked internationally !
It would serve to their political agenda to find Turks guilty but they failed !

Their first intention was finding as many Turks possible guilty then Exchange the remaining with their prisoners.
They despite heavy searching failed to find anything ! These are all recorded in British archives !

Do not believe me ? Read British archives yourself !

隐藏

The much expected "evidence" or the "details of charges" against the Turkish detainees in Malta reached the Foreign Office in London on March 22 as enclosures in Sir Rumbold's dispatch to Lord Curzon. Sir Rumbold wrote that he forwarded "a précis of information" concerning each detainee. However, he pointed out that none of the Allied, associated and neutral powers had been asked to supply any information, that very few witnesses were available, and that the Armenian Patriarchate had been the principal channel through which [the enclosed]. information had been obtained. "Under those circumstances," he said "the prosecution will find itself under grave disadvantage." He further added: "The American government in particular is, no doubt, in possession of a large amount of documentary information compiled at the time while the massacres were taking place." The "evidences" or "details of charges" described by Sir H. Rumbold consisted only of a few typewritten pages for each detainee. The first pages of each file included the biography of the accused person, and the last pages, or paragraphs, contained the "accusations" which were drawn up by the Armenian and Greek Section of the British High Commission in Istanbul. Mr. Ryan, the notorious Head of this section, apparently was in great pain when be tried to invent some sort of justification to those flimsy files, and must have tortured himself greatly when he wrote: "In practice, we have gone on the principle that a sufficient presumption of guilt to justify detention and ultimate prosecution existed against all members of the responsible governments of Turkey at the time when the massacres and deportations [meaning, relocation], took place, and all persons so high in the councils of the C.U.P. [Committee of Union and Progress, the ruling triumvirate of the Ottoman government] as to be able to be credited with a share in directing its policy."


In short, this abject character, the anti-Turk intriguer laid down by himself a pervert "principle" that considers each detainee "a priori" guilty unless they proved their innocence, contrary to the basic principle of law and justice that considers each person innocent until proven guilty. In such a pathetic state were the so-called "dossiers" accusing the Turkish deportees in Malta of the "Armenian massacres." Sir Harry Lamb, one of Mr. Ryan's colleagues at the British High Commission, and who was appointed Consul General of Izmir, minuted on the dossier of one of the deportees, Veli Necdet Bey, the following:

"None of the deportees was arrested on any evidence in the legal sense.

The whole case of the deportees is not satisfactory. No dossier exists in a legal sense. In many cases we have only statements of differing values by the Armenians. In some cases, including that of Veli Necdet, we have nothing but what is a common report and an extract from a printed pamphlet. It is safe to say that a great majority of the 'dossiers', as they now stand, will be marked 'No Case' by a practical lawyer.

"The present Section (i.e. The Armenian and Greek Section of H.M. High Commission) seems to have recorded information concerning the 118 deportees, all alleged to have been guilty... (But) none of this information in itself has a strict legal value."

To sum up, there was no evidence at all to prove that such a crime as alleged "Armenian massacres" was ever committed in Turkey. Therefore, it was impossible to produce any dossier in the legal context against any of the Turkish deportees in Malta.

The officials at the British Foreign Office were disappointed when they received the so-called "evidence" or "dossiers" from the H.M. High Commissioner in Istanbul. However, they were not to give up so easily. They addressed for assistance the U.S. State Department, and the H.M. Attorney General's office. On April 1, 1921, the Foreign Office forwarded all available "evidence" to the Law Officer's Department for information of the Attorney General, and on April 29, they wrote again to H.M. Procurator General for a swift action on this matter.

On May 20, 1921, H.M. Procurator General's department returned the following reply (two years after the first group of detainees were transported to Malta): "...in as much as those persons are charged with political offense, their detention or release involves a question of high policy, and is not dependent on the legal proceedings. The Law Office considers that their treatment is a matter for decision by the Foreign Office, and it does not desire to offer any view upon it."

PRO—F.O. 371/ 6502/ E. 5845:
Procurator General Department to Foreign Office. May 20, 1921

Thus, the Law Office of the Crown, and H.M. Attorney General refused to involve themselves with the alleged "Armenian massacres", and they also carefully avoided to use the word "massacres," so wildly used by the Allied wartime propaganda machine. The following communication of the H.M. Procurator expresses their disappointment with the case and records their difficult position in handling the matter:

"The Attorney General is concerned only with eight Turks whose prosecution he desires for cruelty to the British Prisoners of War. The Foreign Office, however, is concerned with 45 Turks (of whom two have escaped from Malta) who ought to be prosecuted for massacres under Article 230 of the Treaty of Sevres. The letter gives no guidance as to these 45 Turkish nationals. Our difficulty is that we have practically no legal evidence and that we do not want to prepare for proceedings which will be abortive. We asked Washington if the Americans could produce any evidence of massacres against the internees."


The frustration and desperation were very visible in the British authorities in London as well as in Istanbul. “The American government is doubtless in possession of large amount of documentary information compiled at the time the massacres were taking place,” wrote Sir H. Rumbold. This seemed quite a logical statement indeed. If the alleged massacres actually took place in 1915-1918 the American State Department must have been in possession of a mass of materials, since at that time the American diplomatic and consular agents, as well as the members of the “American Near East Relief Society” continued their work in Turkey. In an unprecedented humanitarian gesture this aid society was allowed by the Ottoman Government to stay in Turkey and provide care for the Armenians during their relocations, even following the entry of the U.S. into war on the side of the Allies against Germany, the ally of the Ottoman Empire. This was a lofty gesture unparalleled in the history of mankind, and an ultimate magnanimity on the part of the Turks to have allowed the hostile agents and a fanatical religious organization to move about the country freely to provide help for the Christian Armenians, subjects of the Ottoman Empire who were actively fighting against it. On March 31, 1921, Lord Curzon sent the following telegram to Sir Auckland Geddes, the British Ambassador in Washington:

“There are in hands of Majesty’s government at Malta a number of Turks arrested for alleged complicity in the Armenian massacres. There are considerable difficulty in establishing proofs of guilt. Please ascertain if the United States government is in possession of any evidence that would be of value for the purpose of prosecution.”

BritishArchives. PRO—F. 0. 371/
6500/ E.3552, Curzon to Geddes
Telegram No 176, dated March 31,
1921.

No reply was forthcoming from Washington for about two months, and in the meantime, as noted earlier, H.M. Attorney General had refused to take any action against the Turkish deportees in Malta. Anxious for a reply, Lord Curzon reminded the British Ambassador in Washington on May 27, 1921:

“We should be glad to know whether there is any likelihood that evidence will be available.”

BritishArchives: PRO—F. 0. 371/
6500/ E. 5845 Curzon to Geddes,
Telegram No 314 dated May 27,
1921

A few days later, Sir Auckland Geddes returned a reply, but it was not as promising as had been expected. He wrote:

“I have made several inquiries at the State Department, and today l am informed that while they are in possession of a large number of documents concerning the Armenian relocations, from the description, I am doubtful whether these documents are likely to prove useful as evidence in prosecuting Turks confined in Malta.

Should His Majesty’s government so desire, these documents will be placed at the disposal of His Majesty’s Embassy on the understanding that the source of information will not be divulged.” [An intimation that the available documents are flimsy, as such if their sources are revealed it would be embarrassing for the U.S. State Department.]

British Archives: PRO—F. 0.371/ 6500/ E.6311 Geddes to Curzon,
Telegram No 374, dated June 1921.
(Holdwater note: This portion of the paper always troubled me, because the date provided was incomplete. I don't believe it's accurate; the State Department's wish to not identify the spurious documents seems to have come in the July 13 response, provided [in what I'm now taking as more trustworthy fashion] in Simsir's paper below. As far as the Geddes reply here, Kamuran Gurun provided the following [the date is June 1, 1921]:
I have made several enquiries of the State Department and today I am informed that while they are in possession of a large number of documents concerning Armenian deportations and massacres, these refer rather to events connected with the perpetration of crimes than to persons implicated. [F.O. 371/6503/9647/E.6311; thanks to reader Conan for pointing this out.] )

In reply to this telegram, the British Foreign Office forwarded to Washington a list of the names and brief particulars of 45 Turkish deportees “who are being detained in Malta with a view of trial in connection with the alleged outrages perpetrated on Armenians and other native Christians.” And requested again Sir A. Geddes “to ascertain as early as possible whether the United States Government can furnish evidence against any of these persons.”

British Archives: PRO—F.O. 371/
6500/ E.6311 Foreign Office to
Geddes, Telegram no 775, dated June 16, 1921

On July 13, 1921, the British Embassy in Washington replied as follows:

"I have the honor to inform your Lordship that a member of my staff visited the State Department yesterday in regard to the Turks who are at the present being detained in Malta with a view to trial. He was permitted to see a selection of reports from the United States consuls on the subject of the atrocities committed on the Armenians during the recent war. These reports, judged by the State Department to be the most useful for the purpose of His Majesty’s government, being chosen from among several hundreds.

I regret to inform your Lordship that there was nothing therein which could be used as evidence against the Turks who are being detained for trial in Malta. The reports seen made mention of only two names of the Turkish officials in question—those of Sabit bey and Suleyman Faik Pasha — and even in these cases the accounts given were confined to the personal opinions of the writers; no concrete facts being given which could constitute satisfactory incriminating evidence.

Department of State expressed the wish that no information supplied by them in this connection should be employed in a court of law. Having regard to this stipulation, and the fact that the reports in the possession of the Department of State do not appear in any case to contain evidence against these Turks which would be useful even for the purpose of corroborating information already in possession of H. Majesty’s government.
I believe nothing is to be hoped from addressing any further inquiries to the Department of State in this matter.”

British Archives: PRO—F. 0. 371/
6504/E.8515 R.C. Craigie, British
Charge d’Affairs at Washington, to
Lord Curzon, Telegram No 722 of
July 13, 1921


Mr. W. S. Edmonds, a member of the British Foreign Office minuted:

The Archives of the United States of America.
No genocide proof could be found here, despite
the ton of propaganda from Morgenthau and his
bigoted consuls. (Photo: The Myth of Terror)
"It never seemed quite likely that we should be able to obtain evidence from Washington. We are now waiting for the Attorney General’s opinion as to whether there is a reasonable prospect of convicting any of the prisoners charged with massacres...”

British Archives: PRO—F. 0. 371/ 6504/E.8519: Foreign Office minutes.

Thus, the meticulous search conducted by the British for 30 months with an utmost zeal to vindicate the Armenian allegations produced nothing. The much-touted “eyewitness accounts,” “hard proof’ and “evidence” proved to be grotesque lies. The British, deeply embarrassed by this unexpected turn of events, offered to exchange their prisoners of war in the hands of the Ottoman government with the deportees of Malta. At that point, those prominent Turkish nationals detained arbitrarily and willfully in Malta were no longer suspects but hostages in the hands of the British government. To spare themselves further embarrassment, the British dropped the case. Field Marshal Plumer, governor and commander-in-chief of Malta reported that all the Turkish deportees in Malta, total 59, duly embarked on board H.M.S. CRYSANTHEMUM, and R.F.A. MONTENAL on October 25, 1921. These two ships arrived at the Black Sea port of Inebolu on October 31. The exchange British prisoners were released, and they arrived in Istanbul on November 2, 1921.

 

[Vermillion_Hawk]

Oh yes, the Ottomans wouldn't want the Armenians to get to "unsafety" (lol), just like the Nazis wouldn't have wanted any of the Polish soldiers/officers to meet their end on the road to Katyn.

Calling NKVD nazis isn't that much of a stretch, but it's still weird.

Oops, knew I was forgetting who did that one. My mistake.

He is not a historian. He is a political tool

You two seem to have a lot in common then. I double-checked your reference to Taner Akcam being the source for whatever Wikipedia quotes you are going on about but couldn't find anything either on Ataturk's page or on Wikiquote. Of course, they must have been removed by the international Armenian conspiracy, who puppeteer the media of the Western devil.

I also "graduated from history". Does this make me inherently more trustworthy? Again, do you trust me?

You are sided. There is no other explanation to this. You hate Turks. You are Turkophobic. You want your hate to be justified. You want armenian genocide to be real.

That sounds more like you. You're discrediting all the evidence presented in favour of the genocide as doctored or outright faked and then claiming that nobody wants to hear your side of the story which is ridiculously hypocritical. Why would I even bother to take you at your word when it's a bad-faith argument to begin with? Not to mention you have yet to provide a citation from a source that hasn't been entirely discredited. You keep going on about these "prominent historians" but they're only prominent insofar as they deny the Armenian genocide. Answer me this, since you skirted the question so far - what about the historians who can read Ottoman Turkish, who have gone into the archives and come out claiming that there was a genocide? If you want a name, how about Virginia H. Aksan, a "real" historian?

As for me hating Turks or being Turkphobic, I'm entirely ambivalent towards anyone's ethnicity or nationality or whatever. Do I have real reasons to dislike the modern Turkish state? Yes, and partly because it has produced people like yourself. People like you give real "Turkophobes" justification for hate by obstinately clinging to this denial. Ataturk succeeded in creating a modern state out of the ruins of the Ottoman Empire, but his biggest failure was this program of ethnonationalism which has created mouthpieces like you who can't separate the political history of Asia Minor from whatever twisted sense of pride you hold in what you have been told is your identity. What is the endgame of denial? What's the point? Why would you want to whitewash these events?

Maybe wake up and realize that everyone who claims the genocide was legitimate hasn't been fooled by the international Armenian conspiracy, and they aren't anti-Turk or against modern Turkey either.

Holocoust was/is proven with solid proofs. Neither in Malta trials(despite having control of Istanbul) nor in Switzerland trial the genocide accusers managed to show one solid evidence.

If as you claim, there was even one proof we can count reliable or solid, Swetch court would not make denying armenian genocide legal. Today if a person does the same in Switzerland with Holocaust, he wont be able to win because there is hard evidence everywhere.
There were literally gas facilities ! They industrialised genocide, industrialised it !

You have arrived at 'comparing to Nazi' period in any typical internet discussion.
I wont be answering these because you arent even producing an arguement, you are just mocking and spilling hate !

"Swetch"... you mean "Swiss"?

The comparison with the Nazis is entirely fair because we are discussing actual genocides. As I've said though, not all genocides are treated equally. There are entirely solid proofs for both the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide, as well as the Holodomor. Holocaust denial is more likely to be prosecuted in court successfully, however, and this is largely due to politics. No country in Europe would deny the Holocaust, and most Holocaust denial these days is an attempt to provoke rather than discredit. There are, however, major political reasons why the Armenian genocide and Holodomor are not as internationally-recognized - both are offensive to modern incarnations of the state which committed them, and unlike countries like Rwanda, Russia and Turkey have enough economic power (largely through natural resources or geopolitical location) that they can either bully smaller countries into submission or make it inconvenient at worst for larger nations interested in trade and funding to make a definitive statement on it.

Just because the Holocaust was on an industrial scale does not mean that the Armenian genocide was not a genocide.

You obviously opened an armenian website about the so called genocide and copy pasting their stupid responds from there to here ! Taner akçam, throwing **** at Malta trials, throwing **** at Switzerland trial just shows this.

Watch your language there, those asterisks look pretty hateful. Wouldn't want the biased moderation to come down on you again, right?

I guess Wikipedia and JSTOR are Armenian websites now, which I guess makes sense given the massive financial reserves and infinite political power of the International Armenian Conspiracytm.

You're not addressing my point because it is valid and undermines the usefulness of both the so-called Malta trials and the recent Swiss trial. They're both instances of political expediency - the question of the Swiss trial was one of free speech, not the validity of the Armenian genocide. If you would dispute this then I suppose you're also disputing the validity of a judgement which you seem to hold in your favour.

I'd love to see where those "British archive" citations come from. Was it "tallarmeniantale", or one of your other websites packed to the brim with hate, lies, and ****ing bull****? Thing about them is that whatever EXTREMELY biased source is interpreting them says directly in the introduction that one of the involved persons (a Mr. Ryan, apparent Head of the section) said there was sufficient evidence for prosecution, but that he's an "abject character" and "anti-Turk intriguer". It's easy to spin archival evidence to support you when you're only going to actually listen to specific parts of it. The "Malta trials" were aborted due to the fact that, while the Allies held Constantinople, they were also looking at a decent military threat from Ataturk, and as I said, none were particularly interested in another war, much less one in Asia Minor. It was an expedient political move, not justification for the Armenian genocide being faked.

Again, I'll ask you, where do you think this is going? Everything you've written has been ****ing bull**** so far. What do you think you're going to do?

 

[OghuzBey]

So called Armenian genocide was Indo-Iranian civil war between Armenian and Kurdish gangs.Turks have nothing with this topic.Actually Ottoman goverment tried save Armenians but it didnt work.We were busy with WW1 at same time.

Yes, you are right. The Kurdish army that called "Hamidiye" in Ottoman killed most of Armenian who today some Armenian provocateur says he killed by Turks

 

[Allegro]

So called Armenian genocide was Indo-Iranian civil war between Armenian and Kurdish gangs.Turks have nothing with this topic.Actually Ottoman goverment tried save Armenians but it didnt work.We were busy with WW1 at same time.

A war between India and Iran - except its a civil war and is between Kurds and Armenians. Very eye opening.
"Its not true because the Ottomans tried to save them" is the second best excuse after "Its not true because the Armenians deserved it", but only when the discussion is solely between the denying Turks - and is not really effective in any other circle.

 

[Orion]

Most countries in the region failed to maintain independence with the USSR kicking down their doors.

 

[Allegro]

So called Armenian genocide was Indo-Iranian civil war between Armenian and Kurdish gangs.Turks have nothing with this topic.Actually Ottoman goverment tried save Armenians but it didnt work.We were busy with WW1 at same time.

A war between India and Iran - except its a civil war and is between Kurds and Armenians. Very eye opening.
"Its not true because the Ottomans tried to save them" is the second best excuse after "Its not true because the Armenians deserved it", but only when the discussion is solely between the denying Turks - and is not really effective in any other circle.

I wrote that post with semi joke.I saw this theory on far right European forum and i found it very funny.I really don't care about genocide controversy or what about other "circles" thinks about it.They tried for independent Armenia and they failed.Thats it.

Since you seem to have your own summary about it, you probably don't care that it happened. Which brings us to the first best Turkish excuse that "Its not true because the Armenians deserved it".

 

[Allegro]

What leads is the way you summarize it, not your indifference.
Happy to hear your mother is alive at age 120 though.

 

[Age of Empires ¶ Densetsu]

I went to a Turkish restaurant recently, the food was pretty good. We actually started talking about the Armenian Genocide in slightly hushed tones. Fancy bringing the Armenian Genocide up in a focken' Turkish restoront. Anyway, the Armenian Genocide is literally something that happened. It is completely unshakeable truth.

From Denenstu

 

[pentagathus]

Dense lad where you been?

 

[DanAngleland]

A TURKISH RESTAURANT DO YOU NOT READ

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

Why is khergitlancer normally reasonably critical of nationalist turks but turns into David Irving when the armenian genocide is bought up? Also 3 bans now? Lol

 

[Adorno]

Denying the Armenian genocide is the national sport of Turkey. He can't help it.

 

[Calradianın bilgesi]

Why is khergitlancer normally reasonably critical of nationalist turks but turns into David Irving when the armenian genocide is bought up? Also 3 bans now? Lol

He can somewhat distinguish when nationalism is used against the opposition and when it's not